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Katyal, Clement, and McManamon, Duggin and Collins view the phrase as "opaque" and dangerously "ambiguous" (as well as outdated, unfair, and antidemocratic), arguing that it should be excised by amendment.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.
I like Ted Cruz. You are right that he did not lie about his place of birth and he has vowed that he is loyal to USA. However, he is NOT so truthful when it comes to the question of what constitutes a ‘natural born citizen’ who is constitutionally eligible to be the president of USA!
It appears that he is deliberately confusing the issue by claiming that his nbc status is all settled. He obviously knows what it takes to be a nbc; but in his ambition to become the president of USA, and, in hoping that he can get away with it (since obama has got away with it), he has not been truthful and that is not the behavior of a true constitutionalist. Had he been brave and upright enough to confront this issue, he would have gone down in history as the one who saves the US Constitution!
Fair enough. I don't "track" my interactions, agreements and disagreements, except mentally have a few posters that I don't get along with (you are by far not on that list!!!). You and I might meet by coincidence, but we won't meet because I'm looking you up so I an eat crow or issue an "I told ya' so" to you.
— I am still waiting to see his paperwork on when his MOTHER officially filed his `supposed’ American citizenship with the Canadian authorities. —
As a matter of law, it doesn’t matter if she did or didn’t. He’s a citizen by operation of statute. If the issue was adjudicated, the court would look for the same evidence that should have been (maybe was) presented to the Consular Office. The court could find him to be a citizen, and that would be conclusive of citizenship.
Ted’s campaign staff has maintained from the beginning of this fiasco, that they have a copy of his CRBA. The question is, why is he hiding it?
I think he’s holding it for a big reveal. He could use that real soon now. People are starting to wake up from their stupor.
Why would an immigration (positive) law be needed by someone who was supposed to already be a citizen through natural law?
Nope. All he has released is his CANADIAN birth certificate. All that proves is that he was born in Canada. I’m talking about his CRBA.
A Consular Report of Birth (CRBA) is evidence of United States citizenship, issued to a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the requirements for transmitting citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Consular Report of Birth Abroad - Embassy of the United ...
canberra.usembassy.gov/report-birth-abroad.htmlUnited States
Canada didn’t allow dual citizenship until 1977. So how did he remain a Canadian citizen (if he was ALSO a US citizen) from his birth in *1970* until he renounced in 2014 ? That renunciation is proof that he was NOT a US citizen- UNLESS he had been naturalized in the interim between 1977 & 2014. If not naturalized, Cruz is not a US citizen even now.
Do you understand? Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014- citizenship conferred on him by birth in 1970. Dual citizenship did not exist in Canada until 1977. Cruz would have been either a Canadian or a resident alien in Canada. He could not be both. Since he renounced Canadian citizenship, he could not have been a US citizen at the time of his birth- or via CRBA.
There would have been no Canadian citizenship to renounce if he were a US citizen.
Further, they moved to the US in 1974- 3 years before dial citizenship existed in Canada. He would have had to have been naturalized after 1977 for him to have dual citizenship.
I’m growing rather curious about his passport, too. Is it Canadian? Or US?
Cruz want's you to believe that he proves he was recognized as a citizen-at-birth by the US, then he is NBC.
The issue isn’t settled. But politically, how this plays out is that Cruz is history.
Well said, Cruz knows that he not qualified. He should never have put us through this...the fact that he is keeping this charade alive is what I resent the most.
Your credibility is solid, Cboldt. I understand why you’re saying this & I guess you feel like it’s better to not to get sidetracked from the point (not NBC).
:-) Pardon me, carry on.
Just trying to save you some work ;-) Cruz is not eligible either way, but people who say it’s because he was NEVER a US citizen are going to be tainted with the sticky version of the kook label.
Because that is where the definitions of natural, naturalized were changed/upgraded, who qualifies, who doesn’t, etc. I think(I may be off a few years) the last changes were in the early 60’s and those were the ones that covered Obama’s citizenship concerning his mother’s residency and age requirements. It is all a convoluted mess, typical of how D.C. gets their hands on something and muddys it up.
The earliest changes were after the Civil War when blacks were given citizenship. Then some in the late 1800’s then some about 1920 or so. Not too sure as to the exact dates.
Never the less, if anybody HAS STANDING it will get settled for good.
No worries. That’s a very valid point. I’m just deferring to your judgement.
Bam! That's it in a nutshell. It would seem the very ones that tell anyone not for Cruz that they are not voting their conservative principles, are abandoning those very principles for Cruz.
Ironic, eh?
AND scary as Hell, unfortunately.
Yep, he is a history professor and talks about the historical aspects of the constitution but none to what I am speaking of in that the definition of citizenship has changed legally buy congress over the years.
The lawyers and SC is who will be deciding this, not a history professor.
Not much of an answer. Anyway...
The term "natural" does not appear in the statute. Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 1101 - Definitions
Try again.
Jeese, that was 2011 and what Cruz was covered under was the law at his time of birth.
I am not going to waste any more time on this until the SC makes the decision. Then maybe you will be satisfied one way or another. There are constitutional lawyers on both sides of this subject no matter how many references you provide. Even Trump said he had consulted all his lawyers in Sept. last year and they all said Cruz was legal!!!!!
So you and I and everybody else is just going to have to wait.
Now, naturalized isn't defined, but "naturalization" is...
Do keep in mind that "State" and the word state used there aren't the same thing as "State" is defined while state isn't.
The use of the word state in that definition can mean any country, if you prefer that word, in the world. Like when "sovereign state" is used.
Got a link to that or am I just supposed to "take your word on it"?
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.