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

CNN ^ | 1/29/2016 | Drew Griffin

[bigtoona]

I can’t imagine the Natural born means so little.

In Cruz’s case, one parent was not a US citizen, both parents were living in Canada and remained living in Canada for 4 years after his birth. They were not attached to the US military or government for employment, they moved there of their own free will. This is different than 2 parents on vacation having a suprise birth unintentionally on foreign soil or of course military or ambassadors abroad which should be considered ‘American soil’

In conclusion, he is not a damn NB citizen! How can he be one? Where is the line?

[TornadoAlley3]

I do not disagree. I just do not see Trump picking Cruz over Rubio.

[grania]

There is no divided allegiance if Rubio never had the citizenship.

[Liz]

Nice take.

[WhiskeyX]

“There is no divided allegiance if Rubio never had the citizenship.”

Marco Rubio was born with an inherent duty of obedience and allegiance to his father and his mother, both of whom were aliens in the United States owing a permanent obligation of allegiance and obedience to sovereign Cuba. That duty of obedience and allegiance to any foreign person or sovereign constitutes a divided obligation for obedience and allegiance other than the United States and its citizens.

Michelle Bachmann had the same problem, because she was born as a natural born citizen of the United States with two U.S. citizen parents. However, she subsequently married a husband who is a Swiss citizen, and she acquired Swiss citizenship and a Swiss passport. Although current U.S. law and practice is to not compel her to forfeit her U.S. citizenship since the Cable Act, she has nonetheless acquired a divided obligation of obedience and allegiance to her foreign husband and the foreign nation of Switzerland that has invalidate the sole allegiance of her former natural born citizenship.

[David]

There is a significant amount of misunderstanding about the Supreme Court process and about application of Constitutional Law.

The Supreme Court is really the weakest link in the Constitutional system of checks and balances and if we ever did get to a Constitutional Convention or an Amendment process, some attention should be to eliminating political influence on the Court.

Having studied Con Law extensively over the years, I have a long laundry list of cases where the Court has simply rewritten the Constitution to conform to political demands of the occasion. In my view, Jones & Laughlin Steel (redefining the Commerce Clause power) is the most egregious example but some of the recent decisions (Obamacare; King v. Burwell for example) are as bad if not as broad in application.

Whether we like it here or not, the Article II Sec. 1 provision with respect to Natural Born Citizenship is subject to dispute as to application.

If one were looking at the founder intent, there is in fact a pretty clear record in the form of a letter from John Jay to George Washington which is the source of the existing clause.

In that letter, Mr. Jay expresses concern that a person might be born in Canada; later become a US Citizen; and because of the Crown sovereignty over the place of birth, declare the head of state of the United States subject to the sovereignty of the Crown.

The stuff about parentage of the person; the history of the citizenship of the parents; the rest of this stuff may well be elements that we would like to incorporate in the test--but there just isn't any basis on which to argue that they have anything to do with the provision in the Constitution. Among other things, there is significant dispute as to whether the founders would even have had access to the edition of Vitel from which these kinds of topics might be argued to originate. And even if they did, there isn't any reason to argue that any of these factors had any bearing on the words chosen.

Changing the word "subject" to the word "citizen" is a nice touch but mechanically, should not make any difference based on the actual history we have nor in application of the clause--no reason a person born outside the realm would not have been a natural born subject given the right facts.

That analysis is complicated by the fact that the Court has regularly said it is not bound by legislative history and will decide this kind of case on the meaning of the words--doesn't mean it doesn't cite history in support of its decisions where the history supports the Court's decision either.

The literal words, "natural born citizen" say specifically citizen by birthright when born. Doesn't say can't get that birthright citizenship under the naturalization citizenship statutes.

That's just the argument in favor of Senator Cruz position. It might or might not be successful.

The reason to speculate that he may win with that argument is that it is consistent with what seems to be the basis on which the Court decides these kinds of issues.

This is a political question; the Court is now acting as a political policy decision authority.

So when you look at the basis for those kinds of decisions, you can see that political opinion statements like the recent New York Times article (making the case that the natural born requirement should be eliminated outright) are pretty clear definitions of the political considerations.

When you couple that with the fact that the Constitutional Law Bar in DC presently tends to the view that Citizenship at Birth passes under the clause, you can get pretty comfortable with the opinion that is where the Court is likely to come down.

Free from doubt? No. Poor judgment on Senator Cruz's part to get this far without getting the issue resolved where he looks to have had the opportunity and leverage to get it resolved in his favor where he might not now have the ability to do so? Probably.

[danamco]

Very simple: Such a person must be able to sit on the “Three Legged Stool” which they are NOT legally able to do. The Senate RES. 511 was created to cover up =(protections) for Barry, Hussein, Soebakah, Harrison, Bounell, Soetoro AKA Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, hello !!!

[danamco]

Madam Benghazi/Slick Willy were the first what YOU call “Birthers”. Then came democrat Mr. Berg followed by a slew of others, maybe even you with the HIGH IQ, hmmm. Also Sheriff Arpaio’s findings intimidating been swept under the rug, including John Robers, etc.!

The fight put up here 2007/08 and 2012 were meaningless when you now can accept an “Anchor Baby” made in Canada by two Canadian naturalized parent(S)!!

The Constitution referred to in 2007/08 is nullified by Cruz supporters. No ethical or moral principles counts suddenly anymore regarding “MY” candidate (Ted Cruz). BTW my own Senator, (I liked, I voted for,) is NOT able to sit one a “Three Legged Stool” either and my OATH to the Constitution + (NBC) forbid my consciousness of approving him as a valid candidate!!!

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[danamco]

WHERE does it say that, and what is the requirement to be P/VP, hmmm ???

[Lurkinanloomin]

see post #60 by exit82

[Velveeta]

Thanks for your input. Always enlightening.
In your opinion, who would have standing to bring the matter before the Court?

[John Valentine]

a form [of citizenship] that requires governmental acknowledgment to even exist.

Welcome to the 21st Century. Today, all forms of citizenship are defined by statute.

Check out 8 US Code 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:

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

(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 years...

(a) above appears to cover Donald Trump and maybe even Marco Rubio, and (g) covers Ted Cruz.

The following section even appears to contemplate someone like Barack Obama:

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

Really? Correct me.

[Godebert]

The stuff about parentage of the person; the history of the citizenship of the parents; the rest of this stuff may well be elements that we would like to incorporate in the test--but there just isn't any basis on which to argue that they have anything to do with the provision in the Constitution. Among other things, there is significant dispute as to whether the founders would even have had access to the edition of Vitel from which these kinds of topics might be argued to originate. And even if they did, there isn't any reason to argue that any of these factors had any bearing on the words chosen.

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel's French 'naturels' to mean 'natural born'

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

[frog in a pot]

Welcome to the 21st Century.
Well, that sounds a bit snarky, but since we have very similar backgrounds I will assume you didn't mean it that way.

Today, all forms of citizenship are defined by statute.
Aye, there's the rub.

"Today" doesn't apply unless it is a Constitutional amendment to the definition of NBC as it was intended and used by the founders. Otherwise, of course, the Constitution is whatever the current session of Congress says it is.

As I argued upthread, the context of the founder's usage makes it clear they intended NBC in its highest form. The USSC in Minor (IIRC) stipulated the highest form was 2 parents and U.S. birth.

[Electric Graffiti]

'Where is Rubio?'

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

So did Congress change the meaning of "subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" of the 14th Amendment?

[bgill]

No.

[John Valentine]

I didn’t mean to be snarky, but I know I come off that way sometimes. Sorry.

My point was and remains that as a straightforward legal matter, every type of US citizenship by birth is defined in the same statute and section. They can be distinguished by their conditionalities, but not by their quality. Every one of these citizens stands before the law co-equal with every other.

Except, for some, when it comes to the Presidency, there is a distinction to be drawn on the basis that a Natural Born Citizen is some sort of super-citizen sub-class of ‘citizen by birth’.

The people making this argument are not entirely without a case. Certainly, there has been a wide range of opinion on the subject in various court cases, but never a case that is squarely on point. Even in those cases where citizenship by birth has been denied to an appellant, in every case I am aware of the appellant had failed to qualify either for citizenship by birth under the conditionalities defined in the statute or failed to maintain his citizenship by fulfilling a post-birth requirement of the statute. There has been no case I know of where any citizen by birth, fully qualified under our laws, has had his or her citizenship abridged or denied in any way later in life. In fact, the cases I referred to above are often replete with commentary affirming that all citizens by birth stand equal in every way before the law.

I understand the originalist argument about the term natural born citizen, and it has some merit. However, it fails to persuade me, after studying this issue for a decade, because there is no persuasive evidence that the Framers held a uniform view of what the phrase actually meant. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that some Framers held to the view of Vattel, which is itself ambiguous as to the necessity of a jus soli component, but crystal clear about the absolute requirement fo a jus sanguinis component. It seems that others held to the English common law view, comparing natural born citizen as used in the Constitution to the ‘natural born subject’ spoken of in Blackwell.

Both these views find their way into later jurisprudence and commentary to disastrous effect, as in Wong Kim Ark, which elevated jus soli citizenship to a level I think never contemplated by the Framers, and which ultimately gave us anchor babies. There is a lot more that I could explicate, and I have on other threads, but suffice it to say here that I have concluded that the originalist argument on this matter is nowhere near the slam-dunk that some believe.

If there is no really definitive originalist argument demonstrating that there was a universal and precise understanding of the term ‘natural born citizen’, I think it is natural and appropriate that Congress has the power as the instrument of the sovereign We the People to define how we will determine with precision and certainty who are citizens by birth and who are not, just as we define other terms that are used in the Constitution without explicit definition, such as, for example, ‘resident’.

The only question really is, does ‘natural born citizen’ mean anything distinguishable from ‘citizen by birth’? I think that the Supreme Court would rule that it does not.

[Nuc 1.1]

Might I suggest legalinsurrection.com for their research and article on the issue of Natural Born Citizen. Quite informative. Warning long read.