Check out # 157, ... and follow-up comments.
Thanks, David.
Posted on 01/19/2016 8:55:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The past eight or so years should have proven conclusively that the various strains of birthers out there do not know about which they speak. Nevertheless, this has not stopped them from continuing in their ways. The latest speculation I've seen surrounds the Naturalization Act of 1790 passed by the First Congress. Here is the relevant portion:
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...
Birthers have been asserting that, since Rafael Cruz* did not become an American citizen until 2005, and while he was in Canada with his wife, during which time Ted was born, he became an Canadian citizen. This, in the Birthers' view, disqualifies Ted from this Presidency, as "the Founders" never would have intended someone like him becoming President
But look closer at the bolder portion. It never says that the father has to be a citizen of the United States at the time the child is born. All it says is that citizenship "shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." It is indisputable that Rafael Cruz was in the United States for a period of time prior to both Ted's birth and his marriage to native born American citizen Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson in 1969. He fled Cuba in 1957 at the age of 18, arriving in Texas. There, he attended the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics in 1961. He even married his first wife there, Julia Ann Garza, in 1959. They later divorced, but not before he had two daughters with her. He was also granted political asylum in 1961 upon his graduation from UT.
In other words, Ted Cruz's birth meets everything required in this 1790 act. His mother, Eleanor Wilson, was a citizen by birth in the United States, fulfilling the requirement of a child being born to at least one citizen, and his father had lived in the United States for years and been granted political asylum here prior to his move to Canada.
With all of this said, the 1790 act is far from the only word on the issue. If we're talking about the Founders' intentions, it is also important to note that the Constitution specifically leaves to Congress the prerogative to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" in Article I § 4, and because of this, the ways and conditions under which a person acquires citizenship today. Here is the relevant section of the current law:
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen year...This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date.
And, just in case we are curious as to what the law looked like when Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970, we can look to the Supreme Court Case of 1971 Rogers v. Bellei. Here is a layman's summary of the case (emphasis mine):
[Aldo Mario] Bellei (plaintiff) was born in Italy in 1939 to an Italian father and American mother, and visited but never lived in the United States. Bellei failed to comply with Section 301(b) of the Act, and in 1963 was consequently warned twice in writing by the United States that he was at risk of losing his United States citizenship. In 1964 and 1966, Bellei was informed by the American embassy in Rome, verbally and in writing, respectively, that he had lost his United States citizenship. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of the Act against Rogers (defendant), claiming the Act violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
And via the case syllabus, here is how the Court ruled:
Syllabus
Appellee challenges the constitutionality of § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253, and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163.
Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States," and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished. Pp. 401 U. S. 820-836.
296 F.Supp. 1247, reversed.
The Cruz family moved back to the United States in 1974, when Ted was about four years old. Unlike Bellei, he has been a resident of this country ever since, thus meeting the requirements in place when he was born. All of this is irrelevant now, though, as Congress removed the portion of the law Bellei challenged in 1978.
In other words, Ted Cruz is absolutely eligible to run for President. Furthermore, the precise requirements for citizenship have evolved over the years. Even in the days of the Founders, this was true, as the 1790 act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795 and then later by acts in 1798 and 1802.
Bellei aside, the general trend since World War II is that the Supreme Court prefers to liberalize, not restrict, the requirements for citizenship. Joseph M. Bessette has a great summary of this in his article on naturalization for the Heritage Foundation. If they take up the Cruz eligibility case, I'd think they are far more likely to continue that trend than to impose any more restrictions upon the process. Is that what birther types really want?
So, to make a long story short, the Ted Cruz birthers (and the Marco Rubio ones, honestly) are engaged in a losing battle. The Senator from Texas is every bit as eligible as all other natural born citizens to run for and be elected to the Presidency. This current Quixotic crusade they are undertaking, facts be damned, is nothing but an attempt by rabid Trump supporters to disqualify one of "their guy's" rivals from the race, because they evidently understand that Cruz is a real threat to Trump winning the nomination. This is classic banana republic totalitarianism, and we are better than that.
P.S.: For further reading, this article from the Harvard Law Review, written by former United States Solicitors General Paul Clement (Bush 43) and Neal Katyal (Obama) is definitely worth a read.
I want to sort of "defend" or "explain" my point of view. Do you think I LIKE that Cruz is not qualified? That I somehow get pleasure out of tearing him down? I don't like that he's not qualified. I also don't like to see good, honest, and in a way gullible, maybe better call it a blind spot, I don't like to see people fooled - and the NBC clause is an important check on the preservation of the US as a nation over the long haul.
My only objection or purpose is to disabuse people of the fantasy that Cruz is qualified. If you are comfortable supporting a person who is not qualified, then do so. Plenty of people voted for unqualified Obama, and Congress let the NBC clause skate.
At any rate, my primary "goal" is open eyes. I do not enjoy being the bearer of bad news, but better to deal with reality, than to bury your head.
As for you admonition that I "grow up and deal with things the way they are," I see the NBC clause as dead, now, anyway. At least for as long as Congress ignores it and courts and SCOTUS refuse to deal with it. There is no downside to the constitution, seeking a ruling.
But you should be a realist too, and ponder that if SCOTUS writes the NBC clause out of the constitution (by allowing naturalized citizens to hold the office), then SCOTUS is effectively amending the constitution - a role it is not given. If it rules according to all of it's precedents, according to the constitution, the NBC clause lives, and Cruz's hopes do not.
Feeling lucky? What are the odds? How confident are you, that the court is ready to reverse 200+ years of rock solid precedent to save Cruz's bacon, and change the constitution in a way that is RADICALLY different from what that document says.
From my point of view, you believe he is qualified. Fine with me. My conscience is clear as a bell on this subject.
David, I have no more to say to you, and if I happen to be on one of your "reply" or "ping" lists, please remove me. I notice many names in the "to" line and have trying to make sure to reply to all of you.
Check out # 157, ... and follow-up comments.
Thanks, David.
What is best for this country, and the survival of our constitution is to NOT elect Ted Cruz and further destroy the meaning of it.
And by electing Ted, you legitimize Obama.
Take it to the courts. Nobody agrees it is settled law.
Nothing we can do about it.
It has been settled law for a couple opf centuries now at least!
http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm
At the link I posted her first husband said he was from Texas.
Oh, and that they lived together in England, after a few years got divorced. They both continued to reside there. She had a baby out of wedlock after being divorced from husband 1 (which Ted falsely said, in his bio book, to be a child of husband 1 and mother) after the two of them were divorced. He never knew she was preggers until a hospital staffer told him. Mother Cruz had the baby buried (it died in infancy of sudden crib death) in England before moving back to the states - where she quickly met and married father Cruz. Ted was born soon after.
One thing they do have in common is stating that she used her ex husband's name on her son's birth certificate after she had remarried. That's just.... weird.
Exactly. And have you noticed that the MSM welcomes a Cruz run and have for a while. I wrote this in the Summer of 2013 in an The problem with now allowing a GOP ineligible candidate is that AII S1 C5 is forever gone. Notice without even hinting he was running the libs marched out to declare Cruz eligible. They don't care if he is running or not they just want to legitimize Obama's presidency.
The only hope we have in preserving the Constitution is to have a successful challenge to the term of art "natural born Citizen" while Obama is still in office. I wrote this in the summer of 2013 in this NBC thread:
The problem with now allowing a GOP ineligible candidate is that AII S1 C5 is forever gone. Notice without even hinting he was running the libs marched out to declare Cruz eligible. They don't care if he is running or not they just want to legitimize Obama's presidency.Even today the MSM is in line with him being qualified. If not for Trump we would not be discussing this. In my heart of hearts I want the gavel to declare Zippo to not be a NBC, I am sure we will ever see that. But what really concerns me is that who else now "gets in" in the future as POTUS? Would Cruz be a good president? Yup. But remember Obama "got in."The only hope we have in preserving the Constitution is to have a successful challenge to the term of art "natural born Citizen" while Obama is still in office.
You are and were so correct. I feel like part of the marketing of Cruz for President is with this end in mind.
The ‘Obama is a Muslim’ conspiracy theory is still reverberating in the Middle East
To understand this article, Sunni and Shia’a Moslems are fighting as usual. This time over 0b0z0’s sect!
Facts are that if he were a Moslem, he would have been a Sunni due to the known fact of being brought up in an Indonesian Sunni household. At that young age, I doubt very much that he knew the contested difference between the two sects, unless he was taught specifically the Sunni point of view against the Shia’a.
I believe that 0b0z0, the nothing with no convictions that he truly is, IS an atheist who is a lazy narcissistic entity with few main interests; sports, faggotry, drugs and blackness.
That does not say that the article is totally wrong. The Shia’a foreign policy emanating from the rainbow bathhouse is due to the real Shiite president, ValJar, who started the whole capitulation to Iran, the country of her birth.
If you believe the above reasoning, you will understand perfectly the reason of the *confused* policy towards Syria. The Moslem Brotherhood (MB) and the Shia’a wings in the rainbow bathhouse are fighting it out. There is no confusion whatsoever except from We the People, the real Americans, point of view that is not served by either FOREIGN wing, obviously.
If Hitlery comes to power, God forbid, there will be no more *confusion,* I assure you. She will come in armed to the teeth with the royal blood of the MB; Huma Abidin, the daughter of the leader of the Moslem Sisterhood.
If that happens, you will see the survival of Sunni ISIS, hatred towards non-MB regimes in the ME, mainly Egypt and Jordan.
That is the result of voting in an ineligible president with no American loyalty whatsoever by our *feral fellow Americans,* TWICE.
Let’s not confirm a lousy precedent and vote in another, even if he is one of us and a good Christian.
And, NO, I am not comparing Senator Cruz to 0b0z0, only the circumstances that we spent years researching and discussing on countless eligibility threads.
The Constitution Matters.
Problem you have with that analysis is that the issue of "qualified" is not a mechanical question and it is not going to be determined by a predictable reliable process.
Whether we like it or not, the Supreme Court is a political policy decision making process. On this issue, you can argue that it should be resolved by the conceptual foundation of earlier decisions; a better argument for your view is John Jay's letter to George Washington. Neither one of those arguments is anywhere close to decisive in the current environment.
At present, the establishment bar--particularly the Constitutional Law bar; is very Liberal and very concerned about the proposition that their guy in the White House is clearly not eligible to hold the office under any theory.
There is in fact, serious Supreme Court authority that eligibility to hold office is different from procedural errors in the process of election or installation--a person who is not eligible does not hold the office. So to the extent that stands up, everything Barry has done that requires an actual "President" to do is void.
There are insider blog reports out there that one material level of establishment concern with both Trump and Cruz is that they would pursue this line to remove Supreme Court Justices and eliminate other action. Cruz continues to say regularly that he would do so.
So you have the New York Times out there telling you that it is now time to eliminate the requirement under Article II Sec. 1.
Personally, I evaluate Cruz as more likely than Trump to effectively pursue that issue and other fundamental issues that are important to me.
And as I say above, the Liberal Establishment has used its control over the process to install an ineligible, unqualified person who is determined to destroy American culture and eliminate the Constitutional Judeo Christian ethical structure of our system of government and law. If our adversaries are not going to play by the rules, there is simply no reason we should see ourselves as bound by the rules either to the extent we can avoid their application in an effort to get our country back.
But I agree, that is a close call. Like josphehm20, I am very disappointed that Cruz has not aggressively pursued getting the Natural Born Citizen issue resolved because it is in fact going to be an issue in the primary campaign and perhaps in the general election.
I hope you take no offense that I make no rebuttal. Do not take that as agreement.
One point you should research, and this is offered in the spirit of friendship, is de facto officer doctrine.
But you should be a realist too, and ponder that if SCOTUS writes the NBC clause out of the constitution (by allowing naturalized citizens to hold the office), then SCOTUS is effectively amending the constitution - a role it is not given. If it rules according to all of it's precedents, according to the constitution, the NBC clause lives, and Cruz's hopes do not.
Feeling lucky? What are the odds? How confident are you, that the court is ready to reverse 200+ years of rock solid precedent to save Cruz's bacon, and change the constitution in a way that is RADICALLY different from what that document says.
Sorry, but I make a practice of never letting the other side get the last word in any kind of argument to which I have a clear response.
You start by conceding that the issue is really a dead non issue; then want to have the point that it is somehow a risk that the Supreme Court might declare it dead anyway. You really can't have it both ways.
If I were running the legal action, I would endeavor to use the current situation to my advantage. It looks to me as though this may turn out to modify the rule from born under the sovereignty of the several states to statutory citizenship at birth. Under that rule, Cruz is eligible but Barry is not. So I would like to take that result if I were in charge of getting it.
As to the rest of your point about the Supreme Court, the Court is really the weakest link in the checks and balances system. If we were going to consider modification of the Constitution, some thought should be given to how to address that problem.
Because there is a whole laundry list of Supreme Court decisions that really have no foundation in the Constitution or the body of underlying law and history. Jones & Laughlin Steel is in my mind the most egregious; but there is an extended line of other examples--King v. Burwell and the original Obamacare decision are both outrageous.
I don't see getting a decision in our favor in the Natural Born Clause to get our choice of President in office as being nearly as bad--particularly under the circumstances in which you can envisage the trade.
And by electing Ted, you legitimize Obama.
With all due respect, I think you are wrong on both counts.
If the rule is statutory citizenship at birth, Cruz is eligible and Barry is not.
Barry was also born in Canada. If his mother was Stanley Ann Dunham as advocated in "Dreams", she was born in November of 1942 and thus could not have met the five years after age 14 test in August of 1961 when he was born. If his mother was a Lebanese National, also a citizen of Great Britain who never had any possible theory of US Citizenship, he would have no argument.
The statutory modifications that might have saved him were effective only prospectively or were made long after his birth.
Would not apply to a person who is not "eligible" to hold the position.
I am having a hard time deciding if you are willful, or just stubborn. Either way, you are misleading, and I wouldn't trust you with my socks.
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). "The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees S: 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted).Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995)
If you please, leave me alone, and go dupe your gullible acolytes.
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.