Ted Cruz: The law is clear that I’m a natural-born citizen

posted at 4:01 pm on January 6, 2016 by Allahpundit

A follow-up to last night’s post about Trump dipping a toe back into Birtherism. According to 8 U.S.C. §1401, the class of people considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth” includes the following:

(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

I can’t find a year-by-year timeline for Cruz’s mother but she was born and raised in Delaware and graduated from Rice University in Texas, which should take care of all of the temporal requirements listed above. I’m a little surprised that Cruz didn’t mention the statute in the clip below, choosing instead to reference John McCain, George Romney, and Barry Goldwater. They were each born outside the U.S. too, but if I’m not mistaken, each was born to parents both of whom were U.S. citizens. (McCain is also a natural-born citizen under rules granting that status to children of servicemen and servicewomen born abroad while their parent is serving.) Maybe Cruz thought citing political precedent would be easier for the casual viewer to remember than citing a statute.

Legal scholars Paul Clement and Neal Katyal wrote a short note for the Harvard Law Review last year on the meaning of the “natural-born” requirement. Their conclusion:

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “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 . . . .” The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress…

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, 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. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.

If you want to insist that no one born outside the U.S. can be a “natural-born” citizen, okay, but that’s not in keeping with the original understanding per Katyal and Clement. If you want to insist that children born abroad can be “natural-born” citizens but only if both parents are citizens, okay, but I’m not sure where that conclusion is coming from. It’s obviously not coming from the statute quoted above.

And yet, Trump fans soldier on…

…even though they were known to argue otherwise in the past:

Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson has also seen the light on Cruz’s citizenship, declaring on Facebook earlier this year that “Ted Cruz is a natural citizen by BIRTH and is eligible to be President” and then telling CNN this morning, “There’s a ton of voters who are a little uncomfortable voting for someone outside of the country.” Fancy that.

Two clips for you here, one via RCP of Cruz making the case this afternoon and the other of Mark Levin assuring listeners last night that Cruz is fully qualified under the Constitution. I’ll say this for Trump: Just the fact that Cruz is now stuck having to address this is a minor victory for him. It’ll backfire if he pushes it too hard a think, but as a way to harass Cruz by knocking him off-message and getting his own fans wondering about whether they can or should support Cruz in good conscience, it’s cheap and effective.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Cruz thinks The Constitution says he can be president, just like Cruz thinks The Constitution guarantees citizenship to anchor babies:

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/20/ted-cruz-2011-the-constitution-protects-birthright-citizenship-for-illegals-and-its-a-mistake-for-conservatives-to-spend-time-fighting-it/

Cruz thinks legalizing all 11 million + anchor babies is not amnesty. As he said a dozen times. But now the flipflopper in chief says he’s not for legalizing them, that it’s not a flipflop, that he’s ALWAYS not been for legalizing them, but that is clearly belied by Cruz’s own words:

“My objective was not to kill immigration reform, but it was to amend the Gang of Eight bill so that it actually solves the problem.” -Ted Cruz

“I want immigration reform to pass.” -Ted Cruz

“If my amendment had been adopted, those who are here illegally would be eligible for what is called RPI status, a legal status, and, indeed, in time would be eligible for legal permanent residency.” -Ted Cruz

Or on ethanol we got another flipflop today:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cruz-changes-position-embraces-current-ethanol-mandate-ethanol-lobby-applauds/article/2579743

anotherJoe on January 6, 2016 at 5:28 PM

But I assume folks have long since sorted out these details?

shoutingboy on January 6, 2016 at 5:07 PM

Read the comments in that Volokh post. That statute and the case law cited has nothing to do with the definition of “natural born citizen” under Article 2, section 1 clause of the Constitution that specifically concerned presidential eligibility. A since amended statute concerning “Nationals and citizens of United States at birth” cannot trump the originalist intent in the Constitution–even if it is only a prospective law (which btw, the US Supreme Court has never ruled on.) A better source for the intent and, thus, a more accurate definition of “natural born citizen” would be the 1790 Naturalization Act, which took place only a few years after the Constitution was ratified.

cdog0613 on January 6, 2016 at 5:31 PM

Mark R. Levin [email protected] 2m2 minutes ago

As I said a year ago … http://fb.me/7EqpyLEaz

cdog0613 on January 6, 2016 at 5:33 PM

The issue is moot since Barry Soetero has not been removed from office.

Nutstuyu on January 6, 2016 at 5:36 PM

Are Trumpfans this butthurt?

Flapjackmaka on January 6, 2016 at 5:59 PM

I’m glad we are getting this out of the way now…

Seven Percent Solution on January 6, 2016 at 6:09 PM

Levin, like so many “conservative” talkers, should be ashamed of himself for boosting Trump’s candidacy because it’s good for ratings.

He went ballistic on Trump for his liberal media-like hit job on Ben Carson, acting like it was the final straw. Well, Mark, there have been many “final straws” and you keep tucking your tail between your legs and slobbering over the clown with the out-of-control mouth.

You lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Trump isn’t interested in advancing the cause of conservatism, he is only interested in advancing the fortunes of Donald Trump. This won’t be the last time Levin will have to denounce Trump’s antics. I used to think Mark was a smart guy, but here he is screaming that he won’t defend those “evil” establishment guys because they aren’t actual conservatives. But in demonstrable ways the so-called establishment candidates are more conservative than Trump, who Levin himself denounced as a progressive the last time Trump flirted with the idea of running for POTUS.

Limbaugh’s Trumpism doesn’t surprise me, but Levin really has been a huge disappointment. He talks about the need to elect a “solid, principled” leader–if he truly believed that, he would be vocally anti-Trump. Exactly what are YOUR principles, Mark?

Meredith on January 6, 2016 at 6:12 PM

Aslan’s Girl Retweeted
John Nolte [email protected] 33m33 minutes ago Boone, NC
Cruz should thank Trump. Cuz if he wins the nom, the DC Media is planning on going full-Birther in October.

anotherJoe on January 6, 2016 at 6:22 PM

Cruz will have the full power of liberal judges and media against him on this one. The truth is irrelevant.

Valiant on January 6, 2016 at 6:24 PM

I’m no lawyer and I didn’t even read the post. Also I know nothing about Cruz or where Canada is and I’m not sure what the Constitution says but I have very strong opinions about whatever the discussion revolves around.

Let me just say I favor it.

SpongePuppy on January 6, 2016 at 6:24 PM

“At present, all FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests filed in search of any U.S. citizenship documents to confirm the true official U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz have been denied access. All citizenship records for Ted Cruz are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz agrees to allow any such records to be released by either U.S. or Canadian agencies.

As a result, there remains no authentic evidence to support the claims that Ted Cruz is either a “natural born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States.”

https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/cruz-birther-issue-obama-all-over-again/

H/T the conservative treehouse by a poster.
I’m not familiar with the linked website above, so maybe others here are.

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:27 PM

Katrina Pierson has also seen the light on Cruz’s citizenship, declaring on Facebook earlier this year that “Ted Cruz is a natural citizen by BIRTH and is eligible to be President” and then telling CNN this morning, “There’s a ton of voters who are a little uncomfortable voting for someone outside of the country.” Fancy that.

Katrina is from Texas so I imagine she’s between a rock and a hard place.

Occams Stubble on January 6, 2016 at 6:28 PM

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:27 PM

And I am sure it will work out equally well for Sen. Cruz as it did for The Won.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 6:30 PM

Meredith on January 6, 2016 at 6:12 PM

Well said. The true irony of Levin is that the candidate who one would think is closest to his ideal would be the true Constitutionalist, Ted Cruz. Cruz has argued before the SCOTUS on 9 occasions if the National Journal is right.

MJBrutus on January 6, 2016 at 6:33 PM

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:27 PM

And I am sure it will work out equally well for Sen. Cruz as it did for The Won.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 6:30 PM

That depends on whether Senator Cruz is part of the Establishment or not imo.

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM

If you want to insist that no one born outside the U.S. can be a “natural-born” citizen, okay, but that’s not in keeping with the original understanding per Katyal and Clement.

It’s not in keeping with anything.

The Coulter thing is sad.

Axe on January 6, 2016 at 6:41 PM

Mark Levin makes opinions at times when he doesn’t have all possible facts and he’s doing this supporting Senator Cruz’s natural born status.

Based on the scenario that Levin is using, he’s correct. He just may not have all of the facts yet.

He has been on this now for almost 45 min and just stated he’s not taking any calls on the issue. Case closed in his opinion.

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:44 PM

https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/ted-cruz-and-marco-rubio-constitutional-eligibility-challenged-in-fl/

There is also a challenge in Vermont on that same site.

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:49 PM

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM

Maybe he can just call everyone a racist. And he is not part of any establishment.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 6:50 PM

He has been on this now for almost 45 min and just stated he’s not taking any calls on the issue. Case closed in his opinion.

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:44 PM

He’ll just yell over them anyway. He’s pretty smart but a nightmare to converse with.

cimbri on January 6, 2016 at 7:05 PM

Meredith on January 6, 2016 at 6:12 PM

Well said.

MJBrutus on January 6, 2016 at 6:33 PM

I stopped reading right there.

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 7:09 PM

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM

Maybe he can just call everyone a racist. And he is not part of any establishment.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 6:50 PM

I doubt he’d go that far. There are some questions being raised about Senator Cruz & hopefully the answers or explanations will be forthcoming.

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 7:11 PM

And he is not part of any establishment.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 6:50 PM

He has only worked a total of 5 years outside of the bureaucracy, and that was simply because he was between government gigs, and even then he worked for law firms representing political issues. He has clerked for the SCOTUS and was involved with Bush’s campaign. His wife is a banking executive who is on the Council of Foreign Relations. He is the establishment.

DFCtomm on January 6, 2016 at 7:14 PM

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:44 PM

He’ll just yell over them anyway. He’s pretty smart but a nightmare to converse with.

cimbri on January 6, 2016 at 7:05 PM

I agree. I felt sorry for a gentleman caller last night. Mark’s treatment of him was uncalled for. He wouldn’t even allow the man to finish a sentence, but assumed he knew and insulted him while hanging up on him.

Mark can be very naive at times too and it’s a weakness imo.

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 7:15 PM

This is a moot point. Obama’s elections have already settled the issue. ANYBODY can be prez.

HiJack on January 6, 2016 at 7:27 PM

HiJack on January 6, 2016 at 7:27 PM

Ha, check that.

How bout someone, ANY one (I’m lookin’ @ YOU, Senator) bring this before SCOTUS so the issue is ‘settled?’

Wouldn’t *that* be a quandry vis a vis the issues it would set up for ’44.’

imo, neither are ‘natural born.’ The US Constitution has been so perverted (think: anchor baby ‘citizens) that you’re exactly right HJ, ANYBODY can be preznit.

Pathetic.

jersey taxpayer on January 6, 2016 at 7:33 PM

DFCtomm on January 6, 2016 at 7:14 PM

Better ask the establishment, they seem to want to disown him quick enough.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 7:35 PM

Better ask the establishment, they seem to want to disown him quick enough.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 7:35 PM

He’s an internal threat. You think Trump is interested in running the GOP machine? McConnell fears Cruz more than Trump because Cruz would happily take his job if he loses this campaign. Trump is an existential threat to the GOP, but Cruz is competition.

DFCtomm on January 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM

He’s an internal threat. You think Trump is interested in running the GOP machine? McConnell fears Cruz more than Trump because Cruz would happily take his job if he loses this campaign. Trump is an existential threat to the GOP, but Cruz is competition.

DFCtomm on January 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM

I do however need to qualify that Cindy. A Cruz Majority leader would be infinitely better than McConnell. An establishment must exist, so that doesn’t mean Cruz is horrible, but simply that he is a much improved version of what we currently have.

DFCtomm on January 6, 2016 at 7:41 PM

DFCtomm on January 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM

I still don’t think that the GOP thinks Trump can be elected. They still believe that they have the pubic fooled. And maybe they do.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 7:51 PM

DFCtomm on January 6, 2016 at 7:41 PM

I believe that Cruz believes and loves the Constitution. What he doesn’t agree with he knows can be changed through the process if that is the will of the people. I don’t think many politicians think that anymore. They “lead” on the whim of the polls and the lying media. So I agree that Cruz is establishment in that he will work within the legal systems set forth for us by the Founders.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 7:54 PM

It is clear Cruz, so release information on your mother’s immigration status in Canada at the time of your birth.

The founders said citizenship was to transfer from the father to his children, under their system, YOU wouldn’t qualify! You would be a Canadian and Cuban citizen.

NWConservative on January 6, 2016 at 8:34 PM

The founders said citizenship was to transfer from the father to his children, under their system, YOU wouldn’t qualify! You would be a Canadian and Cuban citizen.

NWConservative on January 6, 2016 at 8:34 PM

Said What?

the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “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 . . . .” The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress

Yeah, I guess you are wrong,

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 8:48 PM

NWConservative on January 6, 2016 at 8:34 PM

Have you had a chance to read my link @ bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:27 PM?

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 9:22 PM

Sorry, Mr. Cruz and his supporters, the answer is….. NO! I repeat, NO! You were born on foreign soil to parents of mixed citizenship. Yes, your mother conferred US Citizenship to you at your birth, but you were NOT Natural-born. That requires TWO citizen parents. Per the Supreme Courts ruling in Minor v. Happersett U.S. 162 (1874) it doesn’t matter where you are born so long as BOTH parents are US citizens at time of said person’s birth. “that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens” Please note, Mr. Constitution, that the Supreme Court Justice wrote this opinion and he specially used the word “citizens” , not “citizen”. It is a critical distinction. Citizens means more than one, therefore in order to be Natural-born both Father AND Mother HAVE TO BE CITIZENS at the time of your birth. You sir, do not qualify under that interpretation. You, sir, MAY NOT become President per the Constitution. You, sir, must withdrawal from this clearly illegal attempt to gain the Presidency.

And yes, that means the current occupant of the White House is there illegally as his father was a British subject at the time of his birth. The fact that his mother was a US citizen and that he was born on US soil only makes him a Native-born citizen. But he is not Natural-born as required by the Constitution. But this clear violation of the intent of the founders by Mr. Obama does not given you license to shred the document you profess to so love. You sir, in all good conscious, should recognize that your own ego has gotten the better of you and you should cede the field to Mr. Trump who has met all the requirements of the Constitution whereas you have not.

Tarnsman on January 6, 2016 at 9:48 PM

To his great credit, Mark Levin calls Trump and you Trumpers calls you kooks….
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-stop-chasing-dumbass-issues/

AYNBLAND on January 6, 2016 at 9:48 PM

Tarnsman on January 6, 2016 at 9:48 PM

Can you provide the exact law that stipulates what you say? Because we can point you directly to the law that stipulates that Cruz is a natural born Citizen.

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 9:51 PM

Oh, brother, now McCain feels obliged to weigh in:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/01/america-doesnt-have-gun-problem-it-has_4.html

onlineanalyst on January 6, 2016 at 9:59 PM

Correct link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mccain-ted-cruzs-citizenship-is-worth-looking-into/

The sultanknish linked article is definitely worth a read though.

onlineanalyst on January 6, 2016 at 10:00 PM

I don’t see any real argument for Cruz not being a natural born citizen. There are two rules concerning birth citizenship: jus soli and jus sanguinis. The first is the rule of soil — where you were born. The second is the rule of blood — were you born a child of American citizens. Either one creates citizenship, though being born to American citizen parents has extra requirements like the parents being residents of the nation for a period of time.

But the Constitution never defines the meaning of “natural born citizen,” nor does it reference a definition from elsewhere. The best definition seems to be the one voted on and approved in 1790 by many of the people who either worked on the Constitution or were involved in ratifying the Constitution.

There just isn’t much room to argue that Cruz is a natural born citizen by statute but not a natural born citizen under the Constitution, since the Constitution sets out no specific definition of the phrase.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 6, 2016 at 10:02 PM

I hearby declare Trump is also a Cuban citizen (imagine Castro saying this)

Does the declaration of an outside nation pertain?

OregonPolitician on January 6, 2016 at 10:04 PM

Come on, Constitutionalist. I have cited a Supreme Court ruling and you are asking me what the law stipulates? Problem is “Natural-born citizen” has never been clearly defined by statue. All we have is interpretations of what the founders intended. Often cited is The Law of Nations by Emerich de Vattel, published in 1758. In that work Vattel makes the distinction that a Natural-born citizen is one born of TWO citizen parents. I am of the opinion that the founders were well aware of Vattel’s work and therefore included the requirement of a Natural-born citizen to become President for a very specific reason. They wanted to insure that whoever became President would be firmly rooted in the country and would want only to advance the interest of the country. Not someone who had a father of different citizenship who will fill his head with ideas that his birth country was evil and had to brought low (sound familiar?). Having born a country out of revolution against a mother country don’t you think that the founders had clear intentions in how they wrote the Constitution? The Presidency is the only federal office (and only because of future amendments the Vice Presidency as well) that has this requirement: to be Natural-born. Problem is that Natural-born was not clearly defined by the Constitution and nor by law enacted by Congress. Thus is only the interpretation by the Supreme Court that can guide us. And the only time that the Nines have done us is in case that I have cited. Like it or not per that interpretation, Mr. Cruz IS NOT eligible to become President.

Tarnsman on January 6, 2016 at 10:14 PM

One thing we can all agree on. If successful, Cruz would be the first non-native American to ever get on the presidential ballot. It’s not exactly a good harbinger that the US Govt will get tougher on immigration.

cimbri on January 6, 2016 at 10:21 PM

Sorry, Mr. Cruz and his supporters, the answer is….. NO! I repeat, NO! You were born on foreign soil to parents of mixed citizenship. Yes, your mother conferred US Citizenship to you at your birth, but you were NOT Natural-born. That requires TWO citizen parents. Per the Supreme Courts ruling in Minor v. Happersett U.S. 162 (1874) it doesn’t matter where you are born so long as BOTH parents are US citizens at time of said person’s birth. “that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens” Please note, Mr. Constitution, that the Supreme Court Justice wrote this opinion and he specially used the word “citizens” , not “citizen”. It is a critical distinction. Citizens means more than one, therefore in order to be Natural-born both Father AND Mother HAVE TO BE CITIZENS at the time of your birth. You sir, do not qualify under that interpretation. You, sir, MAY NOT become President per the Constitution. You, sir, must withdrawal from this clearly illegal attempt to gain the Presidency.

Tarnsman on January 6, 2016 at 9:48 PM

I read the opinion mentioned, which is nice and brief. The case was about whether a woman had the right to vote based on being a citizen. There was no real effort to define the limits of what confers citizenship, or whether it required both parents to be citizens. It was simply addressed to establish that the woman in question was indubitably a citizen.

I don’t think it demonstrates what you want it to demonstrate, since it never addresses the question of whether a person could be a citizen due to only one parent being a citizen.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 6, 2016 at 10:21 PM

Tarnsman on January 6, 2016 at 10:14 PM

You are right, the Constitution does not stipulate, but what the constitution does stipulate is that the CONGRESS makes that determination through the laws it writes.
By the way, I recall reading that Supreme Court ruling, and I think you left out pertinent details, but at this time of the night I am not willing to look it up and clarify. But I think what the supreme court said was that it was beyond doubt that such a parentage did not bestow natural born status upon a child. But they did not declare anything else, such as what the limitation would be. Which is why it is still a question on some people’s minds who are not willing to accept what Congress says, and will only accept what the Supreme Court says.

Anyways, look it over and see if I am right about that if you want. It might open you up a bit. And if you find otherwise, I can read what you have to say in the morning.

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 10:22 PM

Constitutionalist, you are dancing around the issue. Congress has not defined the term Natural-born in statue, therefore all we have to go by is the “intent of the founders” and the interpretation of that intent by the Supreme Court. Once again, the only time that Nines have done so is in the case I have cited and they used very precise language: “that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens” . Again, note the use of the word citizens, not citizen. That means BOTH parents have to be citizens in order to confer Natural-born status to their child. All you Cruz supporters have a very serious issue to content with: under a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the intent of the founder Mr. Cruz IS NOT eligible to become President. The same applies to Mr. Rubio. He was born on US soil to two non-citizens at the time of his birth. He is Native-born, but he is NOT Natural-born. Per the Constitution he is also not eligible to become President. Mr. Obama currently holds his office illegally. He is a Native-born citizen, but his NOT a Natural-born citizen. There is a reason that founders put the phrase “Natural-born citizen” into the requirement to become President. They did not want someone in command of the armed forces of the country and the foreign policy of the country who had ‘dreams of his father’. Obama is more than an example of why the founders put the Natural-born requirement in the Constitution. All of you Rubio and Cruz supporters need to recognize that your guys DO NOT meet the requirement. You need to rethink your support of those individuals given that their egos are so large that they are willing to so blatantly flout the intent of the wise founders. Especially, you Cruz supporters who are always claiming that he would be the best defender of the Constitution. Someone willing to clearly violate the Constitution is no defender in my eyes.

Tarnsman on January 6, 2016 at 10:54 PM

onlineanalyst on January 6, 2016 at 9:59 PM

That Senator McCain has weighed in isn’t too surprising. A little smoke arising is interesting. It was the Washington Post that first brought this topic up in a question to Donald J. Trump. And now Senator Ted Cruz responded and HA has a thread on that. Where this will go, I have no idea.

Thanks for adding to the list:-)

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 11:40 PM

Tarnsman on January 6, 2016 at 10:54 PM

Thank you for both of your posts. It’s good to have information on this topic as it’s being discussed here, talk radio and other sites. Not the easiest to understand, so your posts are helpful.

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 11:45 PM

Tarnsman on January 6, 2016 at 10:54 PM

Indeed your three posts are enlightening. Thank you. Yet perhaps instead of questioning the eligibility of Ted Cruz, we should be asking ourselves, “How important is the Rule of Law?” And how should the Rule of Law be enforced??

The citizenship ruling in Minor v. Happersett remains the law of the land yet today. And the U.S. Supreme Court case Ex Parte Lockwood (1894) affirmed that the citizenship ruling in Minor v. Happersett was indeed a ruling, not mere dicta:

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;… (Ex Parte Lockwood, 1894, boldface emphasis added)

.

Other U.S. Supreme Court cases that reveal and help us better understand the meaning of Natural Born Citizen include:

Scott v. Sandford (1856) — “natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”

Perkins v. Elg (1939) — the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States; her father was a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage

Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920) — the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States; his father was a native-born U.S. citizen; and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage

To this day, whenever an Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The U.S. Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

Perhaps this is why the SCOTUS has so steadfastly refused to hear Natural Born Citizen – Eligibility cases in that this is already a settled matter. Hugh Hewitt once said on his radio show that the U.S. Constitution – Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 is self-executing. If you are not eligible you don’t run for POTUS. Well stated and well said. In other words: if you are a true Statesman you don’t run.

How important is the Rule of Law, and how should the Rule of Law be enforced?

Much more on this matter is found here:

tinyurl.com/mxvsxp — Presidential Eligibility Tutorial © 2009-2014 Stephen Tonchen

tinyurl.com/ouu5pqa — undeadrevolution.wordpress.com (University of Connecticut law students on how the concept of Natural Born Citizen found its way into the U.S. Constitution — Sept 2009).

Pandasta on January 7, 2016 at 4:10 AM

Loser birtherism.

No one is ever going to successfully challenge the right of anyone who has had citizenship conveyed by birthright to run for the office of President. Period. And the very last person who might actually attempt such idiocy is another candidate. To attempt to publicly strip another person of rights while running for office is political suicide. The blather from the other candidates about Cruz’s eligibility is nothing more than a little red meat distraction for the loser set.

But you armchair attorneys with the faux erudition on the topic have at it.

M240H on January 7, 2016 at 4:34 AM

I think Ann Coulter has been spending too much time with Bill Maher. All the second-hand dope smoke is starting to get to her.

fitzsweetpea on January 7, 2016 at 4:44 AM

Yeah, I guess you are wrong,

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 8:48 PM

Yeah, I guess you should read your own links. They also specified in the 1790 naturalization act that citizenship only applied to white males of good character too.

NWConservative on January 6, 2016 at 8:34 PM

Have you had a chance to read my link @ bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 6:27 PM?

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 9:22 PM

I have seen that information before, which is why I am really interested in Ted Cruz’s mother because he is denying access. It looks suspicious.

NWConservative on January 7, 2016 at 9:21 AM

Constitution References Laws of Nation

Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Supreme Court (Many More)

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be a Natural Born Citizen. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the Framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all Children born in a Country of Parents who were themselves, upon their birth, Citizens also. These were Natives, or, Natural Born Citizens as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168

Congressional Record

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess.,1291 (1866))

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your onstitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess.,
1291 (1866))

Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:

“Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))

Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one.

This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:

“Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father

billofrights on January 7, 2016 at 9:55 AM

So Mark Levin thinks the Ayatollah can marry a US Citizen in Iran have the Baby in Iran and that Baby is qualified to be President of US?????

NATURAL BORN is a LAW OF NATURE!!! no one written by ANY MAN!!!!!!!!!

Westminster Kennel Club can do it??

You dont get a German Shepard Puppy from AN Irish Setter and French Poodle..ITS NOT NATURAL!!!!!

billofrights on January 7, 2016 at 10:02 AM

I had not heard this before – Did Cruz’s mother become a Canadian citizen before he was born. And if so, does that make her a non-US citizen at that time?

TerryW on January 7, 2016 at 10:31 AM

billofrights on January 7, 2016 at 9:55 AM

The founding fathers in the first congress addressed this and said that a child born outside the borders to a parent that is a citizen of the United States of America is a NATURAL born citizen of the United States of America.
That should settle the issue as to whether or not Cruz is a natural born citizen in accordance with the founding principles of this nation. The founding fathers themselves in the first congress said that he would qualify.

Constitutionalist on January 7, 2016 at 11:14 AM

“I worked in Canada for eight years,” Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.”

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration

Ted Cruz has citizenship rights to 3 COUNTRIES!!!…

US, Canada, Cuba!!!

if his Mother being a US Citizen makes Him a “Natural” born one!!! the his Father CUBAN CITIZENSHIP MAKES TED A NATURAL BORN CUBAN!!!!!!???

billofrights on January 7, 2016 at 11:17 AM

billofrights on January 7, 2016 at 11:17 AM

The united states does not care if china decides to make him a citizen. Other nations do not control our laws and our people.

Constitutionalist on January 7, 2016 at 11:22 AM

(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

Question for legal beagles, it says “alien” above. If one of the Parents wad from Uranus does this count too, or do both parents have to be earthlings?

Brock Robamney on January 7, 2016 at 11:33 AM

Do people honestly believe that liberal activist judges are going to avoid the argument the way that conservative judges have?

1) The Republicans, and conservative judges avoided the issue out of fear of being called racists, liberal judges do not have that concern.
2) Obama provided a birth certificate showing that he has born in the State of Hawaii.

All a liberal judge has to do is cite SCOTUS precedent of Minor v. Happersett . In this case, a women in Missouri sued the SOS of Missouri demanding the right to vote, because voting was a right of Citizenship, and the 14th Amendment made her a US Citizen.

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

So, the court determined that Minor did not become a US Citizen as a result of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, because she was already a citizen, because she was what the Constitution recognized as a “natural-born citizen”, explicitly, because she was born in the US to two US Citizen parents.

Some argue that the above is not precedent, and was merely dicta, but that is clearly not the case. How is that known? Because the SCOTUS cites that part of the ruling in another case it heard – Ex Parte Lockwood. In Minor the SCOTUS construed the legal term-of-art natural-born Citizen, and in Ex parte Lockwood the Court cites it;

“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.”

If the above Supreme Court precedent is not enough, then in order to dispel the myth that “Citizen at birth” equates to “natural-born Citizen”, all you need to do is look at the rules of Constitutional construction, and the principle of verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent – words should be interpreted to give them some effect. If the two terms above were equal, then there would be no meaning giving effect to the word ‘natural’, therefore the definition would not be valid. The writers clearly intended for the word to have some meaning, otherwise it would not be there.

The word ‘natural’, in the term-of-art ‘natural born Citizen’ is a reference to ‘natural law’. Natural law is law that exists without ‘positive law’ (written laws created by governments). So, the term ‘natural born Citizen’ means exactly this – someone who would still be a Citizen without need of any positive (man made) law.

The framers relied heavily on Vattel and his The Law of Nations when creating the Country. Ironically this is the book that a few years back there were a number of stories that George Washington never returned to the library.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

I believe there is a 100% chance that a liberal judge will rule him ineligible. They will argue that since Obama was born in Hawaii, and his mom was a Citizen, he fits the definition, but since Cruz was born in Canada, he does not.

The above is not what I want to see happen, but as conservatives we do not have 1) the race card to avoid scrutiny, and 2) the media to bury it’s head in the sand. If Cruz runs, and gets the nomination, you will first see legal analysts on every liberal news outlet citing the above cases, and declaring him ineligible. And then a liberal judge will rule that yes, he is ineligible.

Mashman on January 7, 2016 at 11:36 AM

Mashman on January 7, 2016 at 11:36 AM

But,what if one of the parents is from Uranus??????

Brock Robamney on January 7, 2016 at 11:41 AM

The 1790 law says that the children of citizens born overseas are natural born citizens.

Citizens is plural but so is children. Are those claiming that both parents must be citizens because it is plural ALSO insist that there must be children- plural- for the law to apply?

How silly is that? “Sorry Mr and Mrs US citizen, your child born overseas is not a natural born citizen; you needed to have more than one for the law to apply.”

Until a SCOTUS decision in 1874 (Minor v Happersett) it was not universally established that women were even citizens. Hard to have two citizens as parents when there was a significant portion of judges who didn’t even think women were citizens.

Mordaukar on January 7, 2016 at 11:41 AM

Constitutionalist on January 7, 2016 at 11:22 AM

THEN EXPLAIN WHY LAWS OF NATIONS IS REFERENCED IN CONSTITUTION??????????

Citizenship NATURALLY passes though FATHER!!!!

billofrights on January 7, 2016 at 12:07 PM

THEN EXPLAIN WHY LAWS OF NATIONS IS REFERENCED IN CONSTITUTION??????????

Citizenship NATURALLY passes though FATHER!!!!

billofrights on January 7, 2016 at 12:07 PM

Which only makes sense if women are not citizens who have every citizen power that a man has. Is that this nation? Women carry the child, there can be absolutely no question as to who the child belongs to with respect to mother, and all kinds of questions about who the father of a child is.
Natural law, that of the creator and that of nature, is that a child belongs to his parents. Or do you argue bastard children are not eligible to be natural born citizens of this nation?
Since the child belongs to his parents, and his parents belong to a society, say the United States of America, that child also belongs to the United States of America.

THESE PEOPLE ARE FAR MORE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS MEANT IN THE CONSTITUTION THAN YOU COULD EVER BE.

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “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 . . . .” The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress

Singed into law by none other than George Washington, the First President of the United States of America and the person who oversaw the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Constitutionalist on January 7, 2016 at 12:23 PM

Here is the ONLY reference to the law of nations in the Constitution of the United States of America. Just in case you are confused by bill of rights rantings.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Constitutionalist on January 7, 2016 at 12:26 PM

billofrights on January 7, 2016 at 12:07 PM

We now live in a world of self selected gender identification and same sex marriage, etc. The anachronism of patrimonial descent as a qualifier no longer has legal meaning.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM

We now live in a world of self selected gender identification and same sex marriage, etc. The anachronism of patrimonial descent as a qualifier no longer has legal meaning.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM

Actually by simply stating that women are citizens pretty much closed that hole. No need for you to try and tie degenerate behavior to this in any way at all. Considering the fact that some states allowed women the power of the vote at the beginning of the nation already settled the fact that women were citizens. New Jersey for example allowed women to vote when the Constitution was being written.

Constitutionalist on January 7, 2016 at 12:44 PM

Question for legal beagles, it says “alien” above. If one of the Parents wad from Uranus does this count too, or do both parents have to be earthlings?

Brock Robamney on January 7, 2016 at 6:43 PM

It is absolutely stunning to me that all this people who use the Act of 1790 are completely ignorant THAT IT WAS REPEALED.

Worse, we have the HOUSE COMMITTEE NOTES from 1795 explaining why it wasn’t just amended but replaced with the 1795 Act.

It was because they feared it was unconstitutional due to Article II.

You can find lines to the HOUSE NOTES Scribid PDF here: http://www.politijim.com/2016/01/about-that-lie-that-scotus-never.html

You can find a thorough legal analysis of this at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-illinois-board-of-elections-got-it.html

PolitiJim on February 8, 2016 at 3:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2