Posted on 01/28/2016 12:59:06 PM PST by Kaslin
If you attend a presidential campaign event, you may come across someone wearing colonial garb or an Uncle Sam costume or body paint. But a Ted Cruz rally in Iowa last weekend featured something possibly unprecedented: guys dressed up as Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
This was not a random choice of attire. The guys in scarlet tunics were protesters, who passed out copies of Cruz's Canadian birth certificate to highlight the questions about his eligibility for the American presidency. The Constitution says the president must be "a natural born citizen" of the United States.
There is no dispute that the Texas senator was a U.S. citizen from birth, since his mother was an American. Donald Trump has raised questions, though, about whether Cruz, being born in the great state of Alberta, qualifies as "a natural born citizen."
Cruz dismisses the issue. "It's settled law," he says. "As a legal matter it's quite straightforward." In fact, it's never been settled, it's not straightforward and some experts don't agree with his reading.
The fact that it was Trump who raised the issue made it deeply suspect. But though it's unlikely that anything coming out of Trump's mouth is true, it's not impossible. And his claim that this is an unresolved question that could end up throwing the election into doubt happens to be correct.
When it comes to parsing the crucial phrase, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe has noted, "No Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a 'natural born citizen' is completely unsettled."
Tribe says that under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution -- the type Cruz champions -- he "wouldn't be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and '90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a 'natural born citizen.'"
Cruz retorted that this is just what you'd expect from a "left-wing judicial activist." But Tribe, an eminent constitutional scholar, is not so predictable. He surprised gun-rights advocates years ago, before the landmark Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment, when he said it protects an individual right to own firearms.
Even if he's a judicial activist, the Supreme Court might agree with him. Cruz should know as much, because he has denounced the court for its "lawlessness," "imperial tendencies" and, yes, "judicial activism."
Nor is Tribe alone among experts. University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner says, "The ordinary meaning of the language suggests to me that one must be born on U.S. territory." Chapman University's Ronald Rotunda, co-author of a widely used constitutional law textbook, told me a couple of weeks ago he had no doubt that Cruz is eligible. But when he investigated the issue, he concluded that under the relevant Supreme Court precedents, "Cruz simply is not a natural born citizen."
Catholic University law professor Sarah Helene Duggin wrote in 2005, "Natural born citizenship is absolutely certain only for United States citizens born post-statehood in one of the fifty states, provided that they are not members of Native American tribes."
Steven Lubet, a Northwestern University law professor, spies another possible land mine. Cruz qualified for citizenship because his mother was an American citizen (unlike his father). But "under the law in effect in 1970, Cruz would only have acquired U.S. citizenship if his mother had been 'physically present' in the United States for ten years prior to his birth, including five years after she reached the age of fourteen," Lubet wrote in Salon.
That raises two questions: Did she live in this country for the required amount of time? And can the Cruz family prove it?
Whether the justices would take the case is another question. Unless some state election official bars him from the ballot on constitutional grounds or a rival candidate goes to court, it's unlikely a lawsuit would get a hearing. But if that happens, the Court may elect to resolve the matter -- and no one can be confident of the ultimate verdict.
Trump, believe it or not, is onto something. Cruz's candidacy suffers a potentially fatal defect. If Cruz is nominated or elected, he could be disqualified. When Republican voters cast their ballots, they have to ask themselves: Is he worth the risk?
... BUT the newborn child of a U.S. military family stationed abroad is only "naturalized at birth," with a constitutional status actually inferior to that of the Mexican anchor baby?
“He already cleared the question up. He is a natural born citizen”
Of CANADA.
Obama showed no proof and he’s been president fo 7 LONG years. This isn’t an issue anymore.
Yup, you don’t need to read up on it. You were born KNOWING something. Good to know.
300 million
If only a court or a congressional committee could have been convinced of that, but it never happened.
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.‗ Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
My name is neither Jon nor Stewart but thanks for playing!
One thing - Cruzs mother would have to produce all the same records to apply for a US passport for Cruz. Why would she not apply for the CRBA? If a CRBA is just some pointless worthless document, why would there be this whole process in place?
Maybe it is something you should study further. You think?
“If one wants to argue that Cruz is disqualified because his parents were abroad when he was born, one has to be willing to also disqualify all the foreign born children of U.S. military families, all the foreign born children of U.S. business expats on their five year assignments to Rotterdam, London, or Tokyo, all the foreign born children of U.S. diplomats, missionaries, academics teaching abroad, etc. “
“Yes, I know, some adventurous democratic scholars are now arguing that there is a distinction between “natural born citizen” and a citizen “automatically naturalized at birth.” That is the kind of nonsense on stilts that is being invented. Enough. If you have been a citizen since birth, you are eligible to run for president.”
Sphinx, you are “disqualified” from posting on this site. You make too much common sense to be allowed to swim among the the muck of mindless, misguided, misintropes that perpetuate this site. :-)
“All this involves far too much stretching to pass the laugh test. The trick is how to singularly disqualify Cruz without tying oneself up in knots that will boomerang on many others. It can’t be done.”
This sort of logic, with its desire for consistency, is not something the left worries about. The Supreme Court certainly did not do so on the issues of “Gay Marraige” or if Obamacare is constitutional.
I fail to find persuasive the argument that the left will not persue this because it would disqualify many people or be inconsistent.
What you describe, pure jus sanguinas, breaks down exactly as you describe. Many people have a hard time separating family from nation.
I do agree that his citizenship does not depend on action by the U.S. Consulate in Canada.
You’re the one who needs to read and study. I’ve already done that.
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html
“According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.
The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.
Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible.”
I’ve already done the reading. I pointed you to the info on this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3389694/replies?c=321
How long was mother Cruz over in England with Husband #1? She ends up coming back to the US after her child - which she became pregnant with well after the divorce from Husband #1 - died from SIDS. Then she very soon after seems to have met Cruz, and they moved off to Canada, from ‘67 to ‘75, right?
All those babies born abroad are in fact disqualified. hate to break their dream, but that’s the constitution. Recent case law (Aug 2015) on the subject of a baby born on a US military base in Germany. NOT A CITIZEN, because the citizen parent lacked the US residence necessary to transmit citizenship, and a US base abroad is not “in the US” for citizenship purposes.
Nobody is saying they aren't Americans. They are naturalized Americans, full citizens as much as anybody else. The only thing they aren't, is qualified to be president or VP.
I made this same exact point at 78.
Anyone who wants a U.S. passport has to apply for one, but no one is required to apply for a passport or a CRBA.
If a citizen wants to travel outside of the U.S., he needs a passport. Otherwise, he doesn’t.
Not having a passport or CRBA will definitely make it difficult to register for school or get any government benefits.
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.