Can Ted Cruz, a former Canadian citizen, be president?

CNN ^ | 1/29/2016 | Drew Griffin

[ironman]

CNN's Drew Griffin investigates Ted Cruz's eligibility.

Video ran on Anderson Cooper 360.

[Steven Tyler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5vhbDluWiQ#t=212

The response starts rolling at about 5:30 minute point

A clear headed response from someone who investigated Natural Born Citizen from a law enforcement point of view.

1) NBC-a commonly known term in the 1700 and 1800
2) Derived from English Common Law
3) “Natural Born” modifies the word “Citizen”
4) “Natural Born” sets a class of person above another level of Citizenship.
5) Congress has the authority to naturalize Aliens, and not US Citizens

[JT Hatter]

Their main argument on behalf of Cruz is 14th Amendment. Courts might agree, but not original intent ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3386507/posts?page=146#146

[hat tip to Greetings Puny Humans]

FRegards ....

---

I have to agree with you. Original Intent is what should matter. A Trump/Cruz ticket works for me (Would have to magnate the risk if Trump died in office.). They might make the most astonishing team in history. BTW. Love your tagline.

[Steven Tyler]

Congress has the authority to naturalize Aliens, and not US Citizens

[bushpilot2]

[Steven Tyler]

from the 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

1) Cruz NOT born in the US
2) Father NOT subject to US Jurisdiction

Ted Cruz IS NOT a Natural Born US Citizen

[Beagle8U]

“She had been married to Fred Trump for 10 yrs before Donald was born.”

When she was married has no bearing on when she gained citizenship, if in fact she ever did.

[WhiskeyX]

Exactly.

[AuntB]

“When she was married has no bearing on when she gained citizenship, if in fact she ever did.”

Common knowledge. Mrs. Trump got US citizenship FOUR years before Donald was born. And Trump was born on US SOIL, unlike the Canadian.

www.redstate.com/.../donald-trump-natural-born-citizen-lets-inv...
RedState
Jan 7, 2016 - His mother, Mary Anne Trump (nee MacLeod) was born in Scotland. ... that his mother became a citizen in 1942, four years before he was born, ...

[WhiskeyX]

“Where is Rubio?”

Sec. 301(a)(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

[dowcaet]

So true. Here we are melting down because Trump is mentioning it, but the Democrats will have a field day on this, and I think too many of us who support Cruz are kidding ourselves if we think this issue will go away if he’s the nominee. Personally, I’m afraid the damage has already been done and the perception of Ted Cruz the Canadian is already in the minds of tens of millions of Americans.

[Badboo]

You are exactly right, but whether they wish to admit it or not, they that support Cruz are on the same side of history of those who wish to destroy the Constitutional foundation of the nation.

Broadly speaking, there are two main ethoi that infuse American political and social efforts today. The first, is either de jure or de facto to provide American citizenship benefits to the inhabitants of the globe. Redistributing American wealth to the rest of the world is the goal of our politicians, oligarchs, elites and recent immigrants and many other citizens.

Having a foreign born president is fine with liberals, Democrats, many Republicans, illegal aliens and Cruz and his ilk.

The second effort is to ensure the dominance of Islam as the controlling religious and political power.

Almost every action or explanation in public discourse can be tied to one of these two overarching, all encompassing activities.

This will continue, led by all parties. In your lifetime (or your children’s) you will see America bled dry and Islam victorious. Simply chart the velocity of change in all maters politic and social during the last few years and project it. The demographics are against us, the will to oppose is too weak and held by too few.

While D. Trump is the only elite that will speak to this, even if temporarily victorious, a pendulum once swung to the right will pass back through the center to the far left.

[Cboldt]

So we are all naturalized now? That language represents the first prong in the 14th amendment.

[Ciexyz]

Cruz could probably claim Cuban citizenship, too. Now we’re such good friends with them. Bottom line, he’s a world citizen and his wife supports him thru Goldman Sachs sponsorship.

[WhiskeyX]

“Don’t you see the difference? “

It’s unclear what you are driving at. In any event, it is the question of whether or not the child is born with a divided allegiance of the United States.

Ted Cruz is born abroad as an alien born child with a U.S. citizen parent to qualify him to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the authority of Sec. 301(a)(7). Ted Cruz is born with allegiance to the sovereign of Canada due to place of birth, perhaps the sovereign Cuba due to paternity, and the sovereign United States due to maternity. There is no unity and sole allegiance to the sovereign United States, so naturalization is required to establish a form of U.S. citizenship other than natural born citizenship.

Marco Rubio was born within the jurisdiction of the United States with two foreign parents. Marco Rubio acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth under the authority of Sec. 301(a)(1). Marco Rubio was born with allegiance divided between Cuba due to paternity and maternity and to the United States due to place of birth. There is no unity and sole allegiance to the sovereign United States, so naturalization is required to establish a form of U.S. citizenship other than natural born citizenship.

[Kudsman]

Bitterness is so unbecoming. And childish.

[AFret.]

ruz did not disclose loans on FEC reports (required by law) b/c Texans would have discovered he was not the aw-shucks rube he pretended to be. He continued the rube act in order to milk votes from trusting Texans.

At the same time, he also did not disclose he was a dual Canadian citizen......the Harvard-educated lawyer w/ two Ivy League degrees said he didn’t know but later renounced his Canadian citizenship when exposed by the Dallas Morning News.

---

This speaks volumes..he’s playing us, and trusting Texans, for fools..

He still refuses to release his birth documents..we can only wonder what is under that rock.

This kind of shell game reminds me an article I read about the clintons, shortly after bill’s election, (and prior to his impeachment).

A reporter asked, what was the “First thing B & H did when they woke up in the White House that first morning?”....”They Laughed”, replied H.

Later it occurred to me that they laughed because they had successfully hoodwinked the electorate.

Mr cruz is displaying the same contempt for us...ominous.

[WhiskeyX]

“So we are all naturalized now?”

No.

“That language represents the first prong in the 14th amendment.”

The 14th Amendment has no more power to alter Natural Law than does the original Constitution or any other form of statutory law. The Constitution and the 14th Amendment can do no more than recognize the inherent Natural Law, as they did with respect to the Law of Nations and the Bill of Rights recognizing the inherent right to free speech, right of assembly, and right of self defense. Consequently, the 14th Amendment pertains only to the Constitution’s grant of power to Congress “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Naturalization of course means to take an alien person and MAKE the person a naturalized citizen for the purposes of including a foreign born persons into the same community as the natural born persons.

[Yosemitest]

No problem, but if the courts FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, they'll REFUSE to hear it .

As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...

As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article.
Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

" ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.


Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

NOTE: nonjusticiable political question

Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable.[Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
One scholar explained:
The political question doctrine holds
that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
- - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006[2]
A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
A court can only decide issues based on law.
The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
The court will not engage in political disputes.

A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
of a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.

Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?

"Naturalize" !
"admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Related: Naturalizing.

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

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: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

[patlin]

please show us the section of 1401 that uses the phrase “natural born”. Cruz is a “citizen” under 1401, however, he is not a NBC because from birth, his EXCLUSIVE allegiance was NOT to the United States of America as is required by the US Constitution in BOTH A1,S8 & A2,S1. One allegiance from birth and that allegiance being to the United States. PERIOD!

[Cboldt]

I guess my point is that you could take 301(a)(1) out of there. Citizenship to us-born would still attach by the 14th amendment, and not depend on a statute, like Cruz's does.

NBC is a legal term of art. It's not expounded in the constitution, and while a statute could express what NBC is, what NBC is does not depend on the existence of a statute. Same goes for "citizen" other that of the naturalized sort.

I agree with your conclusions, but the text of the 14th amendment doesn't get us there. IIRC, it was said that the 14th amendment has ZERO effect on the meaning of NBC. The 14th amendment operates to prevent states from excluding people (slaves, mostly) from US citizenship.