If he had never been mentioned I wouldn't be questioning it now.
Posted on 01/21/2016 5:31:08 AM PST by VitacoreVision
After many years of debate, the meaning of "natural born citizen" remains unsettled.
During last week's Republican presidential debate, Ted Cruz said it's "really quite clear" he is eligible to run for president even though he was born in Canada, because his mother was a U.S. citizen. His rival Donald Trump insisted "there is a serious question" as to whether Cruz qualifies as "a natural born citizen," one of the constitutional requirements for the presidency.
Here is a sentence I never thought I'd type: Donald Trump is right. Cruz describes a consensus that does not exist.
The Texas senator is not alone in doing that. In a Harvard Law Review essay published last March, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement-solicitors general under Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively-say "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." They call claims to the contrary "specious" and "spurious."
No doubt Mary Brigid McManamon, a legal historian at Delaware Law School, would object to those adjectives. In a Washington Post op-ed piece published last week, she says it's "clear and unambiguous," based on British common law during the Founding era, that Cruz is not a "natural born citizen."
As Catholic University law professor Sarah Helen Duggin and Maryland lawyer Mary Beth Collins show in a 2005 Boston University Law Review article, these dueling perspectives are the latest installment of a long-running scholarly debate about the meaning of "natural born citizen." Contrary to Cruz, Katyal, Clement, and McManamon, Duggin and Collins view the phrase as "opaque" and dangerously "ambiguous" (as well as outdated, unfair, and antidemocratic), arguing that it should be excised by amendment.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, whom Trump likes to cite, has taken both sides in this debate. In 2008 Tribe and former Solicitor General Ted Olson coauthored a memo that said John McCain, the GOP nominee that year, was eligible for the presidency even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Since the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen," Tribe and Olson wrote, to illuminate the term's meaning we must look to the context in which it is used, legislation enacted by the First Congress, and "the common law at the time of the Founding." They said "these sources all confirm that the phrase 'natural born' includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation's territory and allegiance."
Writing in The Boston Globe last week, by contrast, Tribe said "the constitutional definition of a 'natural born citizen' is completely unsettled." He added that based on the originalist approach Cruz favors, he "ironically wouldn't be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and '90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a 'natural born' citizen." Fordham law professor Thomas Lee makes a similar argument in the Los Angeles Times.
Satisfying as it may be for Cruz's opponents to see him hoist by his own interpretive petard, this way of framing the issue is misleading, because the debate about the meaning of "natural born citizen" is mainly about what the original understanding was, as opposed to whether the original understanding should prevail. Originalists such as Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett and University of San Diego law professor Michael Ramsey argue that their approach favors Cruz.
Another originalist, Independence Institute senior fellow Rob Natelson, who describes himself as an "admirer of Senator Cruz," is not so sure. "Although Senator Cruz's belief that he is natural born may ultimately be vindicated," Natelson writes on The Originalism Blog, "the case against him is very respectable."
Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler, who initially said "there is no question about Ted Cruz's constitutional eligibility to be elected president," later conceded he "may have been too quick to suggest that this issue is completely settled." I was similarly chastened to realize it's not safe to assume everything Donald Trump says is a lie.
From the NC poll: 53% of GOP voters say someone born in another country should not be President.
PPP, a linked thread already posted today
That’s the point. Courts will probably say so. But the criticism wouldn’t skip a beat after such a ruling.
No, it is actually settled, only not in a court of law. The congress has the constitutional right to define citizenship and they have multiple times since the constitution was written. It will have to go to the SC so they, all being lawyers, can waddle thru the legalese in all the rule changes since 1790. Only then will the question finally be settled but for some reason I think Trump will figure out how to keep the subject on the front rumor page.
Correct. Absolutely correct, and critical as this debate goes along. It gets more complicated with children born in the US of non-citizens.
-- Natural born is not the same as naturalized. --
I'd put that in more definite and exclusionary form. Naturalized citizens cannot be natural born citizens.
This is a most exciting election silly season. I have never seen anything remotely close, in all of my life.
“We have a great defender of the Constitution, being killed by the Constitution which is only trotted out in this one particular instance. As soon as Cruz is gone, the rest of the Constitution will continue to be ignored.”
But perhaps the ‘tragedy of this generation’ is there is a direct possibility that millions of immigrants will be welcomed by the Dems in the next ensuing years . . ensuring a growing voting bloc for them . . forever. Total transformation of the America in which we grew up . . as Cruz’ eligibility could possibly usher in an amendment to the Constitution that will justify almost any person who is deemed an American ‘citizen’ can rise to the Presidency, with the help of millions of immigrants who can’t possibly be inherently loyal to America ONLY. Do you really want to open that door, start down that slippery slope, for your children and grandchildren?
Thanks....
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/north-carolina/
snip
Cruz does continue to be well positioned as the next in line should Trump falter. He’s
the most frequent second choice of GOP voters in the state with 18% to 12% for Rubio, and
11% for Trump. And specifically among Trump voters 25% say Cruz is their second choice to
13% for Carson with no one else in double digits. His birthplace does appear to be somewhat
of an issue though. 53% of GOP primary voters say someone born in another country should not
be allowed to serve as President, to only 28% who say they’re alright with that. Among that
group that doesn’t think someone foreign born should be allowed to hold the office, Trump leads
Cruz 52-4. And there’s still relatively limited awareness of Cruz’s birthplace- just 49% know he
was born outside the country to 27% who think he was born in the US and 25% who aren’t sure one
way or another about it. Cruz’s favorability has dropped from 61/26 to 55/28 in North Carolina
over the last month.
end snip
NC has it right.
Makes me glad I live here.
Considering Cruz has been a Canadian citizen until just mere MONTHS ago . . I seriously doubt she filed that paperwork before he turned 18 years old. Maybe that’s why he won’t show it.
Additionally,
-Was he Foreign Student when he enrolled at Harvard?
-Did he register for the draft at age 18?
The question of Cruz being naturalized is totally settled by precedent, a body of precedent thousands of pages in length, and with 100% uniformity and agreement. This isn't some "tough" or "flexible" issue, like the extent of power enabled by the commerce clause. Naturalization is very much a cut-and-dry determination under the US constitution (no reference to Vattel, Blackstone, or anything else). Ignore precedent at your peril. In order to reverse the body of precedent, a Court, SCOTUS if you will, will have to hold that NBC includes "naturalized," opening the office to all citizens, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. SCOTUS would literally have to write NBC out of the constitution, without using the amendment process.
They could do that - SCOTUS is masters of deceit and dishonesty. But I really doubt they would want to taint the institution quite that badly. Most likely they refuse to take the issue. Chickens. Just as derelict as Congress.
That's a logical conclusion. What I can't fathom is why people who are supposed to be concerned about globalization don't seem to understand it.
Is NC winner take all delegate state?
whatever. he released it a long time ago.
If he had never been mentioned I wouldn't be questioning it now.
No, Ted Cruz is not a naturalized citizen. Never was, never will be. He was a natural born citizen according to the immigration laws at the time of his birth. This is where confusion comes from. Naturalization is what immigrants have gone thru and still do today and Cruz never had to.
Let’s just let the SC settle it then afterwards we can discuss the decision. Until then we are just swatting at each other flys.
I really like Cruz, we need him as president but I am not 100% convinced he is eligible. He only renounced his Canadian citizenship 2 years ago, in 2014. How can someone who has been a citizen of another country be president of this country?
Perhaps the above question can be answered in a way that makes it legally possible for Cruz to be president but the very fact that there is a question about it even though some may not consider it a legitimate question could lose him a lot of votes.
It didn't cost Obama votes because the press was on his side but in this round the press will do all they can to belittle any Republican or conservative candidates.
We just disagree. You go your way, I’ll go mine.
Congress did it for McCain only. S.Res.511 - A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. Unless you have a link...
A resolution isn't binding, meaning it isn't a law.
I would support an amendment to make such a fine patriot eligibible.
Like I said, the SC will decide. We’ll meet up afterwards.
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.