Illinois Board of Elections declares Cruz a natural-born citizen

posted at 8:51 am on February 3, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

I know, I know … what does Illinois know, anyway? As the Washington Examiner points out, the Board of Elections decision isn’t the first ruling on this matter, but it may be the strongest yet in debunking claims that Ted Cruz is ineligible for the presidency. The board rejected a challenge to Cruz’ inclusion in the March 15th primary in no uncertain terms (via Instapundit):

“The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board said, explaining Cruz met the criteria because he “did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.”

That explanation has formed the basis of a broad consensus ever since Cruz’ status was first challenged. He was born a US citizen by virtue of his mother regardless of where the birth took place. (The same would have been true of Barack Obama, too, although the state of Hawaii has made it clear on multiple occasions that he was born there.) While the phrase “natural born citizen” did not get a clear definition by the framers of the Constitution, that has been the accepted definition in legal circles for more than a century.

The board emphasized that it’s not interested in entertaining any further challenges, either:

A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday’s decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.”

That’s what they think. Never underestimate the power of conspiratorial thinking, nor the impulse to go to court over it. And don’t expect Donald Trump to stop harping on this, although it hardly did him any good in Iowa, and probably won’t do much better in New Hampshire either. It’s a low-cost zinger that guarantees a cheer line at rallies among the faithful, and right now Trump needs to rally them more than ever.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Schadenfreude.

Bmore on February 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM

What conspiracy? Who are the conspirators?

Buddahpundit on February 3, 2016 at 9:16 AM

“If you sit in on a poker game and don’t see a sucker, get up. You’re the sucker.”

clement on February 3, 2016 at 10:19 AM

For People arguing over this still, the first congress and George Washington defined a natural born citizen as one born to a citizen parent including beyond the borders of the nation.
It makes no sense that they would have screwed that up just after passing the Constitution.
No court is ever going to find that a president must have two citizen parents and have been born in the country.
That is if a court will ever even grant a hearing on this.

Constitutionalist on February 3, 2016 at 10:23 AM

They can declare a Chicken is a Duck.

That still doesn’t make it so.

jake1246 on February 3, 2016 at 10:26 AM

Rix on February 3, 2016 at 10:08 AM

Obviously you didn’t have your coffee.

There is zero law, constitutional passages, or court rulings to support anything you typed.

If I’ve missed a nugget somewhere – let me know. It is all based upon YOUR interpretation of what natural born means.

If the Constitution called for natural born to mean only those born on US soil or only to two US citizen’s I’d get your argument and agree with it. It doesn’t say that. Neither Obama or Cruz were naturalized – they were citizens from birth. My definition of natural born fits within that definition stated in the Constitution. You can argue for your definition as well. But the courts have long ago ruled my interpretation is correct and yours is not.

Zomcon JEM on February 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM

I got half way through this thread and and I have got to flee. Birthers!

Vince on February 3, 2016 at 10:29 AM

And don’t expect Donald Trump to stop harping on this, although it hardly did him any good in Iowa, and probably won’t do much better in New Hampshire either. It’s a low-cost zinger that guarantees a cheer line at rallies among the faithful, and right now Trump needs to rally them more than ever.

A SCOTUS ruling on the subject wouldn’t stop it, either. There’s nothing anyone can do to prevent it. Even as it becomes more clear that Cruz is eligible, it’s just an effective way to imply that he’s not really an American.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 10:29 AM

Huh. Now how about Dog Eater?

Bishop on February 3, 2016 at 10:31 AM

Constitutionalist on February 3, 2016 at 10:23 AM

You always go back to your repealed law that was repealed for the specific reason that congress accidentally defined a certain kind of citizenship as being the quality of constitutional citizenship when in fact they could only bestow naturalized citizenship. If you think this stuff is so cut and dried, then you shouldn’t be relying on arguments that scotus would laugh out of the room, such as arguing that repealed law is still in effect.

Buddahpundit on February 3, 2016 at 10:33 AM

Zomcon JEM on February 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM

I don’t presume to judge what the Constitution says on the matter of eligibility. What ticked me off was your statement that Obama never was a non-citizen of the USA. This is a prima facie wrong statement. Hence, your other “scholarly” points should be equally disregarded.

Rix on February 3, 2016 at 10:35 AM

A SCOTUS ruling on the subject wouldn’t stop it, either.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 10:29 AM

I, for one, would welcome a SCOTUS ruling, regardless of outcome.

The SCOTUS admitted, in the case of Minor v. Happersett

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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

It is long past time for the SCOTUS to resolve the doubts that they themselves acknowledged about those who are not “born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 10:39 AM

Making up your own laws now?

MJBrutus on February 3, 2016 at 9:27 AM

The President is supposed to be a “natural born citizen” which is more than just a citizen or born in the US. It’s an EXTRA requirement.

It has to mean born of two American Citizens. In the case of Cruz and Obama both of them had only one parent who was a Citizen. So neither is eligible.

ConstantineXI on February 3, 2016 at 9:31 AM

The Constitution doesn’t say that. All you can argue is that it should say that, because that was intended.

You have to distinguish between the laws you want, and the laws we have. It’s absurd to try to disqualify Cruz because you argue the law should be different.

The only significant question is, what does the law say now? And there is nothing in the law to suggest that you can be a born citizen without being a natural born citizen. That’s why this challenge failed, and any future challenges would do the same.

Unless you get some activist judges ruling based on emanations from penumbras……

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 10:39 AM

For People arguing over this still, the first congress and George Washington defined a natural born citizen as one born to a citizen parent including beyond the borders of the nation.

Constitutionalist on February 3, 2016 at 10:23 AM

What part of your nether regions did you pull that bullcrap from?

JannyMae on February 3, 2016 at 10:42 AM

The only significant question is, what does the law say now? And there is nothing in the law to suggest that you can be a born citizen without being a natural born citizen. That’s why this challenge failed, and any future challenges would do the same.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 10:39 AM

When someone with an actual chance of winning is being nominated, there is always an influential political force behind the candidate; judging by the fact that they choose nominate a potentially flawed candidate, they are likely willing to employ certain extraordinary measures to keep that candidate afloat. Not all judges are willing to roll the dice on their income, reputation, and/or kneecaps.

Rix on February 3, 2016 at 10:45 AM

All it would have taken was a few extra words and they could have made it clear. They chose to leave it open. I think they did it on purpose. A Natural Born Citizen being born of two Citizen parents on soil belonging to the United States of America. That would have done what they wanted. But they deliberately chose not to.

Then we would have 3 classes of citizens. Natural Born Citizens, Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens. No where is that considered to be the case. We have two classes. Those born citizens and those made citizens.

Constitutionalist on February 3, 2016 at 10:10 AM

Actually, they didn’t have to, because at the time, women really had no ability to “own” anything.

All of the documents point to “men”, none of the documents would have said “both” because women were not equal, it was the man who determined the birth rite.

So only one parent was needed, a man.

Of course, that was sociological, and has changed, just like blacks were not “counted”…and few dispute that women have as much rights to children as men.

But at the creation of the constitution, there was no reason to say “both”, it just wasn’t anything that could have been conceived at the time. Women didn’t work (legitimately) or own property.

right2bright on February 3, 2016 at 10:45 AM

The Constitution doesn’t say that. All you can argue is that it should say that, because that was intended.

You have to distinguish between the laws you want, and the laws we have. It’s absurd to try to disqualify Cruz because you argue the law should be different.

The only significant question is, what does the law say now? And there is nothing in the law to suggest that you can be a born citizen without being a natural born citizen. That’s why this challenge failed, and any future challenges would do the same.

Unless you get some activist judges ruling based on emanations from penumbras……

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 10:39 AM

Why should it matter what the law says now? What the law says now has no bearing the Founders’ intent. If you have to be declared a natural born citizen based on current law, or ANY law, other than the Constitution, as written, then you ain’t one.

That’s why this issue needs to be clarified, either through amendment or legislation. The Constitution doesn’t say “natural born citizen based on the criteria for citizenship at birth in 2016.” THERE IS NO DEFINITION GIVEN. Why some of you are so intent on not admitting that is puzzling.

JannyMae on February 3, 2016 at 10:46 AM

If a businessman stops over in Thailand, knocks up a prostitute, then flies back home an hour later, can the kid come to the US 20 years later, and call himself a “natural-born citizen” because he shares DNA with a sperm donor who was technically a citizen at the time of his birth?

Buckshot Bill on February 3, 2016 at 10:47 AM

What Constitutional provision guaranteed that Canadian born Cruz was a US citizen at birth? That’s what I thought… It’s not it the Constitution.

It was a Congressional statute passed under its authority to govern immigration and naturalization that granted Cruz automatic citizenship at the time of his birth. If Congress had not passed that statute or changed that statute before he was born (which Congress was authorized to do), he would have been a Canadian and not an American Citizen. He owes his entire claim to citizenship to a statute, not to the Constitution. Statutes cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. You have to have an Amendment to do that.

So, the fact that he had statutorily granted citizenship at the time of his birth has no relevance to the question of whether he possesses the Constitutional status of natural born citizen.

tommylotto on February 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM

What part of your nether regions did you pull that bullcrap from?

JannyMae on February 3, 2016 at 10:42 AM

Fact, by all defining laws of the Britain, and most of the world, from the days of the Roman empire, that was international law.

It was the parent, not the geographical location of birth that decided who the child “belonged to”.

Countries did not give up the sovereignty over their people so easily.

It was created from the fact that the country “owned” you.

right2bright on February 3, 2016 at 10:50 AM

So, the fact that he had statutorily granted citizenship at the time of his birth has no relevance to the question of whether he possesses the Constitutional status of natural born citizen.

tommylotto on February 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM

No, it was the definition at the time…geograhics did not play into it…it was the citizenship of the parent.

right2bright on February 3, 2016 at 10:51 AM

So the children of Princess Grace are also eligible?

Nicole Coulter on February 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM

THERE IS NO DEFINITION GIVEN. Why some of you are so intent on not admitting that is puzzling.

JannyMae on February 3, 2016 at 10:46 AM

There was “no definition” because it was obvious.

“promote the general welfare”….they knew what that meant, Madison knew, they didn’t go into long definition’s…

It’s the definition’s later that has caused the problem…not what Madison wrote and thought.

Anyone can twist what they think know is the meaning…but the meaning was very evident in all of the writings…it’s the parent, not the geo place of birth.

Otherwise, Britain would not have spread as far as they did…all the subjects born around the world, were subject of the Queen…the were natural born.

right2bright on February 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM

And why did anyone ever worry about Barack Obama being born in Kenya? Kenyan-born is NO problem says Ted Cruz!

Nicole Coulter on February 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM

Constitutionalist on February 3, 2016 at 10:23 AM

You always go back to your repealed law that was repealed for the specific reason that congress accidentally defined a certain kind of citizenship as being the quality of constitutional citizenship when in fact they could only bestow naturalized citizenship. If you think this stuff is so cut and dried, then you shouldn’t be relying on arguments that scotus would laugh out of the room, such as arguing that repealed law is still in effect.

Buddahpundit on February 3, 2016 at 10:33 AM

Do you have a link or evidence that they removed natural born citizen for that reason? No one has ever been able to point to one yet.

You can find online the Congressional discussion about the 1795 Naturalization Act, but it says nothing about changing the definition of natural born citizen.

Unless you have some proof that they recognized “natural born citizen” was a mistake and removed it, this is nothing more than yet another assumption.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM

You always go back to your repealed law that was repealed for the specific reason that congress accidentally defined a certain kind of citizenship as being the quality of constitutional citizenship when in fact they could only bestow naturalized citizenship. If you think this stuff is so cut and dried, then you shouldn’t be relying on arguments that scotus would laugh out of the room, such as arguing that repealed law is still in effect.

Buddahpundit on February 3, 2016 at 10:33 AM

That will be the law the Supreme court looks at. They give laws passed by the very first congress supreme value compared to all other evidence when there are questions about constitutionality of something. Because the very first congress was made up of most of the founding fathers and George Washington was the overseer of the creation of the Constitution.
The fact that they passed that law, defining natural born citizen will carry a tremendous amount of weight.

Now then, I made a challenge to people before. There are books written about the meetings of the congress. You can go look up those books, and go find where they debated the replacement law and show me where they specifically say that the reason they changed the text was because they were mistaken.

Are you up for the challenge? I thought not. I went through the pages scanning for references to natural born citizen and did not find anything. Maybe you will do better.

Constitutionalist on February 3, 2016 at 11:03 AM

A SCOTUS ruling on the subject wouldn’t stop it, either.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 10:29 AM

I, for one, would welcome a SCOTUS ruling, regardless of outcome.

Some would, and I appreciate that. But it would still be a popular line in speeches, and there will always be those who just don’t care.

Case in point:

I don’t care if the Supreme Court rules he’s a natural born citizen, He’s not! Prior to 1934 he would have no claim to American citizenship at all.

Sarah-Cuda on February 3, 2016 at 9:50 AM

The SCOTUS admitted, in the case of Minor v. Happersett

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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

It is long past time for the SCOTUS to resolve the doubts that they themselves acknowledged about those who are not “born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 10:39 AM

The class of people where there were doubts were the ones born in the US, but not to citizens. Cruz was born to an American citizen, though outside of the US. He was not part of that class of citizens in doubt. Vattel’s Law of Nations put more weight on determining citizenship based on who your parents were than on where you were born.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 11:06 AM

So, the fact that he had statutorily granted citizenship at the time of his birth has no relevance to the question of whether he possesses the Constitutional status of natural born citizen.

tommylotto on February 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM

Indeed, Cruz was born a citizen by statute, not by Natural Law.

Natural born citizens, those born citizens by Natural Law, do not need any man-made statute, a fact which was alluded to by SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett:

The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment.

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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

The Minor Court said that natural born citizens do not need the 14th Amendment in order to be considered citizens.

The contrapositive is that anyone who needs the 14th Amendment in order to be considered a citizen is not a natural born citizen.

Those who need 14th Amendment or any other statute in order to be considered a citizen at birth (a born citizen by statute) are not natural born citizens (a born citizen by Natural Law).

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM

For People arguing over this still, the first congress and George Washington defined a natural born citizen as one born to a citizen parent including beyond the borders of the nation.

Constitutionalist on February 3, 2016 at 10:23 AM

What part of your nether regions did you pull that bullcrap from?

JannyMae on February 3, 2016 at 10:42 AM

1790 Naturalization Act. Unless you think an Act of Congress is something pulled from his/her nether regions.

As an act of Congress, it was pulled from an entirely different set of nether regions.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM

The same absolutely would not have been true for Obama as his mother did not meet the second part of section 2 “having lived in the US for 5 years after the age of 14”.

Pretty big gap you jumped there.

brainpimp on February 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM

Does he have an US State department report of birth abroad or a state/county issued Birth cert?

dougmva on February 3, 2016 at 11:13 AM

Vattel’s Law of Nations put more weight on determining citizenship based on who your parents were than on where you were born.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 11:06 AM

Vattel wrote:

By law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers…

Cruz’s father was Cuban.

At birth, Cruz had ties to three countries:

1) Canada – by birth location
2) Cuba – by father’s citizenship
3) USA – by mother’s citizenship

I do not doubt one bit Cruz’s loyalty to the USA, nor his statutory status as a citizen at birth.

I do, however, believe that the connections to other countries which Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, McCain, and Obama all had at birth make them ALL ineligible.

Obama’s own campaign web site admitted he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject.

John McCain was born at Colón Hospital in Colón, Panama.

Coco Solo Naval Air Station did not build a hospital on the base until a few years after McCain had been born.

Cruz’s father, and Rubio and Jindal’s parents, all did not become U.S. citizens until years after their birth.

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 11:19 AM

They give laws passed by the very first congress supreme value compared to all other evidence when there are questions about constitutionality of something. Because the very first congress was made up of most of the founding fathers and George Washington was the overseer of the creation of the Constitution.
The fact that they passed that law, defining natural born citizen will carry a tremendous amount of weight.

Constitutionalist on February 3, 2016 at 11:03 AM

They repealed it after the father of the eligibility clause was seated as the first supreme court justice and set congress straight. I don’t know if Washington ever signed the naturalization act since it was an expressed power of congress, I wouldn’t see the point of a presidential signature. He can’t veto it any more than he could veto an impeachment.

Buddahpundit on February 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM

Is this why Trumped the shark:

Donald Trump: ‘Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it’ http://twitchy.com/2016/02/03/donald-trump-ted-cruz-didnt-win-iowa-he-stole-it/

Torcert on February 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM

Vattel wrote:

By law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 11:19 AM

We no longer live in that patriarchy. We live in a nation where all men (people) are created equal by their God. Thus, they follow the condition of their parent of either sex in this nation.
The following the condition of the father was a poor choice anyways. Women cheat, babies are not always the husband’s. Some women are not married when giving birth. The certainty of who the child belongs to before DNA testing is certain only through the mother who gave birth.

Constitutionalist on February 3, 2016 at 11:27 AM

They repealed it after the father of the eligibility clause was seated as the first supreme court justice and set congress straight. I don’t know if Washington ever signed the naturalization act since it was an expressed power of congress, I wouldn’t see the point of a presidential signature. He can’t veto it any more than he could veto an impeachment.

Buddahpundit on February 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM

I told you, find the documentation of the conversations and provide your proof. It exists somewhere. If you want your lunatic level argument to have validity, you need to provide more than I say.
The First Congress is the congress that the Supreme court will look to determine questions on constitutionality when in doubt and where appropriate.

That is where the Supreme Court will first look and since they defined Natural Born Citizen there, that is where it will rest.

Constitutionalist on February 3, 2016 at 11:30 AM

Thus the Act of March 26, 1790 would be unconstitutional if it attempted to enlarge the rights of a naturalized citizen to be equal to those of natural-born citizens under the Constitution.

Although it is not within the power of Congress to change or amend the Constitution by means of definitions of languages used in the Constitution so as to mean something different than intended by the framers (amendments being governed by Article V) an argument might be advanced to the effect that the use of identical language by Congress substantially contemporaneously might be considered in later years by a court to reflect the same meaning of the same words by the framers of the Constitution; and under this argument to attach importance to the Act of Congress of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103).

This argument fades away when it is found that this act used the term “natural born” through inadvertence which resulted from the use of the English Naturalization Act (13 Geo. III, Cap 21 (1773) as a pattern when it was deemed necessary (as stated by Van Dyne) to enact a similar law in the United States to extend citizenship to foreign-born children of American parents. In the discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives in respect to the proposed naturalization bill of a committee composed of Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania, Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina and Andrew Moore of Virginia, Mr. Edamus Burke of South Carolina stated, “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III.” (See pp 1121, Vol 1 (Feb. 4, 1790) of Annals of Congress.) The proposed bill was then recommitted to the Committee of Hartley, Tucker and Moore, and a new bill containing the provision in respect to foreign-born children of American parentage was included, using the Anglican phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Manifestly, Mr. Burke had given the wrong reference to the Act of Parliament of the 12th year of William III which was an inheritance law. But, it was a naturalization bill and the reference to the English acts shows the origin of the inadvertent error in using the term natural-born citizen instead of plain “citizen” came from copying the English Naturalization Act.

Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.

The Act of 1795 provides:

The children of citizens born outside of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

In 1802, when Congress repealed entirely the law of 1790, it enacted that “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, although born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States” (2 stat 153). (R.S. 1993) This was followed by the Act of 1855 (10 Stat 604) which repealed the Act of 1802.

This misreprentation of the 1790 Naturalization Act as definitive of natural born citizenship is unconstitutional and demonstrably false, of course, because it was taken up by the Democrats to claim FDR Jr., born in Canada, was eligible for the presidency. He was not, and neither was Chester Arthur, had he been born in Canada, and neither was Barack Obama, if he was born in Kenya. Ted Cruz is most certainly ineligible.
http://www.constitution.org/abus/presidential_eligibility_george_romney_mcelwee_1967.html

ezspirit on February 3, 2016 at 11:30 AM

Ah, the asshattery yet abounds I see. Keep up the good work, people! The Trumpaign expects your reports and briefs by Friday morning!

M240H on February 3, 2016 at 11:31 AM

Those House committee notes exist in the National Archives and were presented to Congress by Pinckney G. McElwee in 1969 when George Romney ran for president. Cruz will 100% lose in court with Rob Natelson and Larry Tribe on record saying an originalist interpretation of the constitution would rule against Cruz.

ezspirit on February 3, 2016 at 11:36 AM

Illinois, broken clock, blind squirrel, and all that.

Nutstuyu on February 3, 2016 at 11:38 AM

Meh, Andrew Jackson had two immigrant parents, both of whom died before the U.S. finished whipping the Brits. That is a pretty strong case for anchor baby.

Limerick on February 3, 2016 at 9:40 AM

That’s why the Founders wrote this:

or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

Nutstuyu on February 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM

I do, however, believe that the connections to other countries which Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, McCain, and Obama all had at birth make them ALL ineligible.

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 11:19 AM

Why is it that these kind of people keep running for president and putting us in this quandary? I am fourth-generation born in the USA, my wife is sixth-generation born in the USA, our next door neighbors are both at least third-generation born in the USA–despite one being of Korean descent. Why don’t more normal, native citizens run for president?

Nutstuyu on February 3, 2016 at 11:55 AM

Why should it matter what the law says now? What the law says now has no bearing the Founders’ intent. If you have to be declared a natural born citizen based on current law, or ANY law, other than the Constitution, as written, then you ain’t one.

Again, an argument made without any real support. The 1790 Naturalization Act, for example, said that children born to American citizens abroad were natural born citizens. That was part of the generally accepted definition of natural born citizen at the time. So are they NOT natural born citizens just because Congress clarified that they WERE?

The Constitution does not define the term more specifically. If you want to argue a particular definition, then you necessarily have to derive that definition from somewhere, either from common law, or from Vattel’s Law of Nations, or from inferences in the text, or from the writings of those involved in creating the Constitution. Or possibly from Congressional statute. Which of these should we put more weight on? Much of our legal system is based on British common law, but common law didn’t define citizens so much as it defined subjects. Under common law, it didn’t amount to a hill of beans who your parents were or what country they came from. If you were born on British soil, you were immediately a subject of the king. Even if you were a citizen of another country just passing through, a child born in Britain was a British subject. Vattel’s Law of Nations, on the other hand, rejected this approach, and said that the nation of your parents’ allegiance determined your citizenship. He also distinguished between being temporarily in the jurisdiction of a nation because of physical presence and being permanently under the jurisdiction of a nation because of citizenship. It’s really not hard to show that the Founding Fathers relied more on Vattel’s approach than on British common law. So here are two main sources for defining the meaning of citizenship that are contradictory. The 1790 act, on the other hand, shows clearly that the first Congress considered citizenship to follow the parents’ citizenship.

BTW, under Vattel’s approach, the whole “anchor baby” phenomenon disappears. A child born to illegal aliens from Mexico would be considered a Mexican citizen rather than an American citizen. It’s interesting to realize that many of the same people calling Cruz an “anchor baby,” are arguing FOR defining citizenship by birth location, and by extension FOR anchor babies.

That’s why this issue needs to be clarified, either through amendment or legislation. The Constitution doesn’t say “natural born citizen based on the criteria for citizenship at birth in 2016.” THERE IS NO DEFINITION GIVEN. Why some of you are so intent on not admitting that is puzzling.

JannyMae on February 3, 2016 at 10:46 AM

There is already legislation, but it tends to get met with the complaint that Congress can’t define natural born citizen, because all they can do is pass naturalization laws. So the only way to “clarify” the issue is Congressional Amendment.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 11:57 AM

“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.”

ITguy – Are you claiming that Ted Cruz at birth was an ‘alien or foreigner’? How can one simultaneously be a citizen at birth and also an ‘alien or foreigner’?

And how can the universally understood definition of “natural born citizen” be born of two citizen parents when it was NOT universally understood in the early days of our Republic that women were citizens?

??????? any answers ???????

I won’t hold my breath.

Mordaukar on February 3, 2016 at 12:04 PM

Trump fans hardly need anything else to show their stupidity, but they manage to keep dragging stuff out anyway.

Moesart on February 3, 2016 at 12:17 PM

You’re the stupid one, Moefart.

Sherman1864 on February 3, 2016 at 12:26 PM

Why don’t more normal, native citizens run for president?

Nutstuyu on February 3, 2016 at 11:55 AM

Immigrants doing the jobs native Americans won’t do? Sorry, I just had to…

Fallon on February 3, 2016 at 12:31 PM

This is such a stupid, silly argument.

Captain Kirock on February 3, 2016 at 12:39 PM

William Shakesman and Mojo Nixon were right: Destroy all lawyers.

Christien on February 3, 2016 at 12:47 PM

and if you don’t agree, you will get your “VOTING VIOLATION” F grade shaming in the mail from “Carson is out” nasty Calgary Sen Ted

Senator Philip Bluster on February 3, 2016 at 12:47 PM

It’s a shame that the GOPe didn’t expend as much energy on finding out what the current resident in da people’s house was trying to hide through all of his lengthy obfuscation. As in, like, all of his records (school, medical, etc). Now, I’m not saying he was ineligible but he sure put up a lot of money and resistance to hide something, IMHO. But instead, the establishment is doing all it can to knock off someone who is running as a Repub and may be one of the few that are “electable”. Yet they try to shield the hag like they did with the Jr senator from ILLinois (sadly, my home state). It’s really hard to maintain any real hope, and not the kind Jr promised, that this country isn’t about to be flushed down the bowl with the next election.

Big John on February 3, 2016 at 12:53 PM

The Science is settled, Deniers.

jake1246 on February 3, 2016 at 12:54 PM

Back-to-back Harvard-trained lawyers and Constitutional experts. Hey, I know…let’s take it on a case-by-case basis every election, rather than providing clear, concise guidance once and for all.

For the children, of course.

Christien on February 3, 2016 at 12:54 PM

I don’t think either of them (Obama nor Cruz) are eligible because neither of them had two parents who were citizens,

ConstantineXI on February 3, 2016 at 9:26 AM

Making up your own laws now?

MJBrutus on February 3, 2016 at 9:27 AM

Nope. Understanding the intent behind some of the writing in the US Constitution. You should try reading it, and the conversations surrounding it at the time.

Or are you saying that we should support Presidents with dual citizenships?

dominigan on February 3, 2016 at 12:55 PM

I do agree it’s a stupid argument to keep having so let’s hope for a suit the gets all the way and a final definition can be stated.

I really don’t care which way it goes. I don’t care for Cruz for reasons other than any Candadian citizenship but he should have known better this would be a problem yet he did nothing about it.

He didn’t even try until it was brought up and he disavowed any Canadian Citizenship and that was a good thing but why did he wait?

Let’s get a final definition so all this can stop.

jake1246 on February 3, 2016 at 12:57 PM

Trump fans hardly need anything else to show their stupidity, but they manage to keep dragging stuff out anyway.

Moesart on February 3, 2016 at 12:17 PM

Now that’s the way to win friends and influence people. With that comment, I have just seen the light. I don’t know what I was thinking before you enlightened me. I must agree with all of your points now that you’ve clearly shown me the error of my ways. Jackass…

Big John on February 3, 2016 at 12:59 PM

Can we all just agree that kids with Outie belly buttons are ineligible?

‘Cause that’s just creepy.

Christien on February 3, 2016 at 1:03 PM

How can one simultaneously be a citizen at birth and also an ‘alien or foreigner’?

Mordaukar on February 3, 2016 at 12:04 PM

Cruz was born with both U.S. citizenship and foreign citizenship.

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 1:03 PM

From ITGUy:

Indeed, Cruz was born a citizen by statute, not by Natural Law.

Natural born citizens, those born citizens by Natural Law

Unfortunately, neither of the objectors submitted copies of Nature’s statute book.

krome on February 3, 2016 at 1:05 PM

Unfortunately, neither of the objectors submitted copies of Nature’s statute book.

krome on February 3, 2016 at 1:05 PM

Read this.

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 1:12 PM

Cruz was born with both U.S. citizenship and foreign citizenship.

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 1:03 PM

So if the passage you quoted said one was a natural citizen as opposed to an alien or foreigner – it seems that you are attempting to split the difference that the passage that you quoted set up. That one could be BOTH a citizen at birth AND a foreigner or alien.

That is why foreign laws have no bearing upon US citizenship at birth. Either one is a citizen at birth (in accordance with natural law, often recognized and codified by statutory law) OR one is a foreigner or alien. A foreigner of alien of the USA is ONE WHO IS NOT A US CITIZEN!!! Anyone who IS a US citizen is NOT a foreigner or alien.

It wouldn’t matter one bit as far as US natural born citizenship if England passed a law that all US citizens at birth were also citizens of England at birth. Our laws are not subordinate to the laws of other nations.

Mordaukar on February 3, 2016 at 1:29 PM

Mordaukar,

Cruz was born in a foreign country, to a father who was a citizen of yet another foreign country.

Do you honestly believe that First Chief Justice John Jay and First President George Washington would have wanted a person with birth ties to 2 foreign countries to become Commander in Chief of our military?

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 1:38 PM

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 1:38 PM

And yet in your infinite wisdom you seem to know exactly what they were thinking. And all without any evidence of their words too! Amazing!

Indefatigable on February 3, 2016 at 1:50 PM

Unfortunately, neither of the objectors submitted copies of Nature’s statute book.

krome on February 3, 2016 at 1:05 PM

Read this.

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 1:12 PM

You gave us something some person wrote about his philosophy. Nature hasn’t written anything yet. Calling your philosophy “natural” doesn’t make it so.

krome on February 3, 2016 at 1:53 PM

And all without any evidence of their words too! Amazing!

Indefatigable on February 3, 2016 at 1:50 PM

Evidence of their words, posted by me earlier today, and overlooked by you.

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 2:11 PM

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 1:38 PM

Yes – the Founders also apparently thought nothing of making eligible someone who had spent some 60% of their life overseas – only 14 years of US residency of a 35 year old is only 40% of their life spent within the USA.

George Washington signed into law a recognition that those children of US citizens born overseas will be natural born citizens in 1790.

So OBVIOUSLY George Washington thought a US citizen born overseas could also spend 60% of their life NOT IN the USA – and still be eligible for the Presidency.

And how about women not being universally considered citizens in the early decades of our Republic? Can it be universally understood that a natural born citizen has to have two citizen parents when it is NOT universally understood that women are even citizens?

Mordaukar on February 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM

And all without any evidence of their words too! Amazing!

Indefatigable on February 3, 2016 at 1:50 PM

Evidence of their words, posted by me earlier today, and overlooked by you.

ITguy on February 3, 2016 at 2:11 PM

And you’re apparently illiterate too. Says nothing about any opinion of his on dual citizenship or his views or whether such births would pose a problem. Your link is tenuous at best and pure sophistry at worst. You are assuming the meaning of “Foreigner” to include someone like Ted Cruz, when he may not have meant that at all.

This is the kind of crap trickery the birthers use to try and win arguments for their views that are clearly won over by a sense of history and sound reasoning, both of which they seem to lack.

Indefatigable on February 3, 2016 at 2:30 PM

Then why did McCain have to bend over backwards because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a US unincorporated territory?

And why did Barry Goldwater have to do the same because he was born in Arizona when it was not a state but a US territory?

And why the fuss over Obama whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.

All were born to parents of whom at least one was a US citizen.

And why are anchor babies US citizens if they are born on US soil to parents who are NOT US citizens?

No, this makes no sense to me. Clearly, where you are born is paramount. Inheritance plays a role, a subordinate one, but a role, when born outside of the US. Last time I checked, Canada is not part of the US.

Is this just wink-wink-nod-nod? We apply it when we want and question it otherwise?

billrowe on February 3, 2016 at 3:13 PM

George Washington signed into law a recognition that those children of US citizens born overseas will be natural born citizens in 1790.

It provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

Btw did Washington sign this into law? He wouldn’t have to, since Congress was empowered by the constitution to enact a uniform rule of naturalization.

Washington did, however, agree with John Jay when he said, “Permit me to hint” whether foreigners should be excluded from the presidency. At the time the constitution was adopted, foreign born children of citizens were aliens. They were during many periods throughout U.S. history.

But why would they insist the father be a citizen in the 1790 act? Because it was copied from English inheritance law. It was never intended to define natural born citizenship, which is why it was repealed.

ezspirit on February 3, 2016 at 3:23 PM

Interesting, what if a few states don’t give him the stamp of approval? Cruz would have to go to Court. So much for the idea that only an antagonist has standing to go to court over this. Trump might still turn out to be right over this.

cimbri on February 3, 2016 at 4:37 PM

It was never intended to define natural born citizenship, which is why it was repealed.

ezspirit on February 3, 2016 at 3:23 PM

Often asserted, never proven. There is no record of why the 1790 act said “natural born citizen,” and the 1795 act simply said “citizen.” The most likely reason is that the 1795 act used one sentence to describe two groups of people as citizens, those who were naturalized at the same time their parents were naturalized, and those who were born to American citizens abroad. The first group were naturalized citizens, and the second group were not, so you could hardly have described naturalized citizens as “natural born citizens.”

That would be reason enough for the textual difference. Instead, we get all kinds of speculation about how Congress must have removed it because they realized it was a mistake.

It seems more likely that the phrasing of the 1795 act was a mistake, because a single sentence applied to both naturalized citizens and born citizens. If the new act was really supposed to clarify that children born to American citizens abroad were not natural born citizens, you’d think they would have said that rather than just leaving out the words.

There is still no evidence that Congress ever intended to create a special category of born-citizens-but-not-natural-born-citizens.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 4:48 PM

Interesting, what if a few states don’t give him the stamp of approval? Cruz would have to go to Court. So much for the idea that only an antagonist has standing to go to court over this. Trump might still turn out to be right over this.

cimbri on February 3, 2016 at 4:37 PM

That would not be the way to bet. And Trump doesn’t seem to be betting that way, since he’s not filing a lawsuit, and he indisputably would have standing.

I don’t think Trump believes it. I think he just says it to get people riled up.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 3, 2016 at 4:50 PM

ezspirit, the founders were a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

If the children of US citizens born overseas were natural born citizens (and according to the 1790 act, signed by President Washington, they were) without any regard to residency within the USA – then it would be possible to have several generations of US citizens abroad who had never been to the USA.

Yes, Washington signed this into law. Congress has many powers, and it exercises these powers through legislation, and absent a veto over-ride, these are signed by the President.

Can you cite ANY period subsequent to the 1790 act where foreign born children of US citizens were aliens? The 1790 act was not repealed – it was replaced; there is a big difference. The replacement of that act provided for the children of US citizens to also be citizens at birth.

As to why the importance placed upon the father? Well it was not universally understood that women were even citizens back then – political allegiance was therefore understood to follow the condition of the father.

So how could being a natural born citizen require TWO citizen parents, and this be the universally understood definition (hint – it wasn’t) when there was a great deal of ambiguity in if women were even citizens?

Mordaukar on February 3, 2016 at 4:51 PM

So, Winston Churchill could have been elected president of the United States? (He was born in England to a British father and an American mother.)

Colony14 on February 3, 2016 at 5:41 PM

Statutes that refer to generic citizenship have no bearing on whether one is a natural born citizen. The latter is a subset of the former. All trees are plants but not all plants are trees. That a statute may treat Cruz as a citizen does not mean he is a natural born citizen. Most of the people who comment on this would flunk out of law school.

Colony14 on February 3, 2016 at 5:44 PM

Yes Colony14, citizenship is a generic term that encompasses all three different types of US citizen.

A Senator for example must be a citizen – and all three types of citizen mentioned in the Constitution have served as a Senator.

Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, a natural born citizen, or a naturalized citizen. Currently there are only two types of US citizen, all those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution being presumably deceased.

Two types of US citizen, and two ways of becoming a US citizen. Either one is a natural born citizen or one must be naturalized as a citizen.

“born or naturalized” is a phrase throughout our laws. I have yet to see reference to ‘naturalized at birth by statute’ within our law, or any law that found a citizen at birth to be a naturalized citizen.

Mordaukar on February 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM

And Ted was born in Canada.

forgot to bid on February 2, 2016 at 10:17 AM

Doesn’t matter.

In Rogers v Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that a man born in Italy to an American mother and Italian father, who was not only conferred American citizenship AT BIRTH, but was – get this – A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN at birth, as well.

The ONLY difference was that he could lose his citizenship if he did not reside in the United States for a minimum period of 16 years, a law IIRC was repealed in 1977/8. He had not met that requirement at the time of his suit and was, subsequently, stripped of his American citizenship.

In Cruz’s case, he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Rafael left Cuba in 1957 to attend Rice University and, after his student visa expired, sought political asylum. He sought work in the oil and gas business. He moved to Calgary after his visa expired. Once there, he met American, Eleanor Wilson, who was a mathematician and data processor. The two married and started a firm that processed seismic data for the oil business – if you have even rudimentary knowledge of the oil and gas exploration business, you know how important seismic data is.

Ted was born in December of 1970. Rafael did not become a Canadian citizen until 1973. Both of his parents were legally residing and working in Canada in the oil and gas industry. [Whether or not Cruz’s mum was on a voting list is more than likely irrelevant because non-citizens, but legal residents were allowed in some Provinces to vote in local elections – just as they are in cities in the US now, except we allow ILLEGALS to vote in some local elections].

In early 1974, Rafael moved to Houston and his wife and child joined him several months later. Ted Cruz was three years old. He has lived the next 42 years of his life in the United State of America.

Cruz was educated in the United States. Memorised the United States Constitution and toured the state reciting it. He graduated cum laude from Princeton University in New Jersey.

While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship. In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year, and with his debate partner David Panton won Team of the Year. Cruz and Panton would later represent Harvard Law School at the 1995 World Debating Championship, losing in the semi-finals to a team from Australia. Princeton’s debate team named their annual novice championship after Cruz.
Cruz’s senior thesis at Princeton investigated the separation of powers; its title, Clipping the Wings of Angels, draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to US President James Madison: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and that the last two items in the Bill of Rights offer an explicit stop against an all-powerful state.

After graduating cum laude from Princeton, he attended Harvard Law School where he was not only the Moot Court champion, he was the primary editor of the Harvard Law Review (an earned position based on merit, as opposed to the position of President, which Obama held, which is obtained though receiving a majority of the student electorate and is more of a figurehead position), founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review, and the Executive Editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. While at HLS, Cruz was the John M Olin Fellow in Law and Economics. In 1995, while representing Harvard, he became the semi-finalist in the World Debating Championship.

He graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude.

While serving as a law clerk to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, William Rehnquist, he also became the first Hispanic ever to do so.

From 2003 to 2008, he served as the Solicitor General of Texas – which made him not only the youngest Solicitor General in the entire country, but both the first Hispanic and longest serving Solicitor General in the history of the great State of Texas.

As a partner at the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, he headed the firm’s Supreme Court and national appellate division.

Made over 40 oral arguments before the Supreme Court and authored more than 80 briefs filed with The Court.

Over the objections of Governor Edwin W Edwards and District Attorney Harry Connick (father of Harry Connick, Jr), Cruz joined three other lawyers to rescue an innocent African-American man, John Thompson, who was a 22 year-old father of two when arrested for the capital murder of a prominent businessman. He spent nearly two decades on Death Row in Louisiana’s notorious Angola State Prison and barely escaped execution.

His brief to The Court was a sweeping indictment of law enforcement brutality, unbelievable prosecutorial misconduct, and a plethora of felonious conduct across the state bureaucracy and an abhorrent ‘indifference’ to the truth and the law…

‘The behavior of the prosecutors in this case—from the district attorney on down—shocks the conscience. Four different prosecutors withheld evidence that would have proven John Thompson’s innocence, and, as a result he spent 18 years wrongfully imprisoned and was nearly executed for crimes he did not commit. But for a chance discovery by defense counsel weeks before Thompson’s scheduled execution [in 1999], the prosecutors’ misconduct would never have come to light, and John Thompson would be dead today.’

Nevertheless, a few months later, in a 5-4 decision, the conservative majority sided against Cruz and Thompson even though the blood evidence, amongst others, proved that the real murderer was one Kevin Freeman.

As Cruz responded:

Many states, including Texas, have concluded that capital punishment is an appropriate sentence for juries to impose on the very worst murderers. Sen. Cruz was honored to represent John Thompson, a man WRONGLY convicted of murder. It is only liberal stereotypes that suggest that conservatives are unconcerned with innocence. Having worked many years in law enforcement, Cruz understands that our justice system depends on protecting the innocent and ensuring just punishment of the guilty. DNA evidence proved that Mr. Thompson was actually innocent, and his incarceration and near execution was a miscarriage of justice. For that reason, Cruz was proud to join his law partners representing Mr. Thompson pro bono (free of charge) in his civil litigation against the DA’s office that wrongfully suppressed the blood evidence in his case.

Later, evidence was discovered that had been suppressed by the District Attorney. Thompson won a new trial and the jury acquitted him in 35 minutes. In addition to explicitly exonerating him and sternly recommending his immediate release from prison, the jury awarded him in $17 million in damages.

Now, don’t take this as evidence of Senator Cruz being soft on crime. Quite the contrary, he has argued for the death penalty in many cases and, over the objections of the Governor of Texas, George W Bush, argued before the Supreme Court that the International Court of Justice should be prohibited from reopening 51 death row cases within the United States. He, not Bush and the ICJ, won…because, as I have often reminded posters here, international and supranational treaties do NOT supercede/trump the COTUS. See: Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

In the landmark case Heller v United States, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), establishing unambiguously the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, Cruz helped assembled the 31-state coalition to fight for your Second Amendment rights.

He has fought for the right to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or pray in schools, as well as for the installation of the Ten Commandments on state property where supported by local standards.

He fought the Establishment to become the junior Senator from Texas with the endorsements of the TEA Party and the Republican Freedom Caucus.

He didn’t abide by the ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement of Two Years’ (sit in the back, shut up, and vote as you are told for 2 years) because he has made promises to his constituents. This made him ‘hated’ on ‘The Hill’, but loved by those who really count, his voters.

He has won numerous awards and fought the Establishment for ‘forgot to bid’s’ so many times that forgot has forgotten. Now, the number might be less than the number of times Donald Trump has used eminent domain to take the private property of a lowly individual to expand his empire (those gold-plate faucets in his planes need upkeep, ya know?), but anyhoo

Famed Harvard Law School professor, Alan Dershowitz (who taught law there for 50 years) ranks Senator Ted Cruz among the school’s smartest students, adding that the Canada-born Texan can run for president in 2016.

‘Cruz was a terrific student…He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian….He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responsesCruz’s views were always thoughtful and his responses were interesting…I obviously disagreed with them and we had good arguments in class. I would challenge him and he would come up with very good responses…[Cruz’s] career has not surprised me. I thought he would go on to accomplish important things….His movement toward social conservatism has surprised me a little bit, but people will change and perhaps when you are at Harvard Law School you are less likely to espouse a socially conservative point of view. [Cruz] was an outstanding student in my class. Without a doubt raw brain power.’

Now, forgot to bid, according to the Supreme Court:

Bellei + born in Italy + to + Italian father + American mother = NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN

:: Citizenship revoked because he did not spend the (the) requisite 16 years in America

But, according to forgot to bid:

Cruz + born in Canada + to + Cuban father + American Mother = NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN

:: EVEN THOUGH HE HAS LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES, BEEN EDUCATED IN THE UNITED STATES, WORKED IN THE UNITED STATES, VOTED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND REPRESENTED THE UNITED STATES ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Lime in the Coconut on February 3, 2016 at 8:31 PM

The primary issue in Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), was a Fourteenth Amendment challenge concerning the right of women to vote. The Court held that such prohibitions did not violated the Equal Protection Clause. All of the discussion about natural-born citizenship was irrelevant to the holding and was, therefore, dicta.

You guys can cite Minor v Happersett until you are blue in the face and die from a lack of oxygen and it will change nothing. The 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution effectively overruled the case in whole.

It’s dicta is irrelevant. It opinion on natural born citizenship has never been controlling law. Controlling law on the matter of natural born citizenship, for the pluspart, is Rogers v Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

Get used to it and stop looking to Orly Taitz for legal advice.

Lime in the Coconut on February 3, 2016 at 8:43 PM

Dual citizenship is a canard. As was pointed out above, our law cannot prevent some foreign government from designating a person a citizen of their nation, thus making him a “dual citizen”.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM

This is very true. Anyone who argues that dual citizenship negates being a natural-born citizen of the US is either ignorant or stupid (or both).

My wife is Japanese, we had a daughter born in the US. She was a U.S. citizen upon birth because of me. You know what else? She is also a Japanese citizen upon birth (based on Japanese law). She is a dual citizen.

Here’s a kicker as well. The birthers would say that my other child is not a natural born citizen due to being born (to the same parents) in Japan instead of the U.S.

It’s illogical. One sibling is “natural born” and the other isn’t even though the parents are the same? It doesn’t follow.

Pattosensei on February 4, 2016 at 4:51 AM

Pattosensei,
Given that you said that your wife is Japanese and conferred Japanese citizen upon your child, I assume that she is not a U.S. citizen.

Many of those whom you refer to as “the birthers” understand that John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, was on record quoting from Vattel, and Vattel defined natural born citizens as those “born in the country, to parents who are its citizens”.

By that definition, neither of your children are natural born citizens.

They are born citizens, by statute law, but are not natural born citizens, by Natural Law.

No one would say that all citizens are born citizens. The word “born” has meaning, and “born citizens” are a subset of “citizens.

So why do some content that all born citizens are natural born citizens? The word “natural” has meaning, and “natural born citizens” are a subset of “born citizens”.

It’s a very logical argument to say that both of your children are born citizens, but neither of them is a natural born citizen, due to the citizenship of their mother (as well as due to birth location in the case of 1 of your children).

ITguy on February 4, 2016 at 10:51 AM

Illinois just wants the Dems to be in a position to sue on the issue of citizenship should Cruz be nominated. By declaring him a citizen, they assure he will be on the ballot in Illinois and therefore able to pick up delegates.

polarglen on February 4, 2016 at 11:18 AM

Fixing typos from above…

No one would say that all citizens are born citizens.
The word “born” has meaning, and “born citizens” are a subset of “citizens”.

So why do some contend that all born citizens are natural born citizens?
The word “natural” has meaning, and “natural born citizens” are a subset of “born citizens”.

ITguy on February 4, 2016 at 11:30 AM

ITguy on February 4, 2016 at 10:51 AM

The controlling law is Rogers v Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), not Vattel.

Aldo Mario Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Aldo Mario Bellei was a natural born citizen of the United States from the moment he took his first breath.

At some point between his birth and the law suit, Congress passed a law that required all natural-born citizens to reside within the United States for a period of sixteen years. It was because he failed to meet this requirement that he was stripped of his American citizenship, not just his natural-born citizenship.

IIRC, this law was repealed. In Ted Cruz’s case, however, it would be irrelevant. Cruz father came to the US on a student visa to attend the University of Texas at Austin. When that visa expired, he was granted political asylum. He entered the oil and gas business. Cruz’s mother was born in Delaware and attended Rice University in Houston. She was a brilliant mathematician and data analyst. In 1969, while they were working at an oil company in New Orleans, they met and married.

For those unaware, Alberta is a huge O&G E&P area and those that can accurately read seismic data are in high demand. The Cruzes moved to Calgary and opened their own seismic and date processing firm. At this point, Mrs Cruz was a natural-born American citizen. Mr Cruz was a citizen of Cuba, but a permanent, legal resident through asylum in the United States. Their son, Ted, was born on 22 December 1970. At that point, neither of his parents was a Canadian citizen.

Unlike Aldo Mario Bellei, Ted Cruz left Canada at the age of three and spent the next 42 years of his life residing, being educated, memorising the entire COTUS, debating, graduating cum laude from Princeton University and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, marrying, fathering two, beautiful little girls, representing private clients, gaining the freedom of an innocent man, who spent almost two decades on Angola State Penitentiary’s Death Row, argued against allowing the UN to open 51 death row cases (over the objections of Governor George W Bush), served the people as Solicitor General and Senator.

If Aldo Mario Bellei was a natural-born citizen of the United States of America, who lost his citizenship because he failed to reside within the country for 16 years, then guess what?

So is Ted Cruz, whose mother was an American citizen and he has spent a helluva lot more time living, working, and participating in American society than any 16 year requirement.

Now, as an aside, the Naturalization Act of 1790 passed by the First Congress stated:

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….

As I’ve demonstrated, Rafael Cruz WAS a resident of the United States. He did not become a Canadian citizen in 1973 – three years after his son’s birth. He became a naturalised American citizen in 2005.

Eleanor Cruz has never renounced her American citizenship. There are only SEVEN specific ways to renounce your American citizenship and they all involve overt and voluntary actions. The applicable law on surrender or forfeiture of citizenship is Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481). It states that Americans citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts are:

1. Obtain naturalization in a foreign state (and this does not apply to dual citizenship, which is perfectly legal. See: Afroyim v Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) and Vance v Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980); (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA) .

2. Take an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA).

3. Enter or serve in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA).

4. Accept employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA).

5. Formally renounce U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA).

6. Formally renounce U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA).

7. Be convicted of an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

The allegation that Eleanor Cruz’s name showed up on some voter roll is definitive evidence of NOTHING. First of all, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and others routinely show up on our voting rolls, along with scores of dead people and those who moved away decades ago. Secondly, many countries allow legal, permanent residents to vote in local, county and provincial elections. Hell, in the United States, some localities even allow ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO VOTE. Unless Mrs Cruz took one of the 7 affirmative and voluntary steps to renounce her American citizenship, she is as American as are you. If you believe otherwise, then the philosophic (and legal) burden of proof is on you to produce evidence to the contrary, which supports the claim that Mrs Cruz renounced her citizenship. Until such proof is produced by either the American or Canadian government, rumours and lies and suppositions or ‘Please, God, let this be true!’ prayers mean absolutely nothing.

Given the SCOTUS’ growing liberal bent on citizenship since World War II, I hope Trump and his Merry Band of Birthers put their money where their mouths are. Not only is it almost a certitude that SCOTUS will find Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz a natural-born citizen and eligible to run for the Presidency of the United States, those challenging it will either find their suits summarily dismissed or denied and fines assessed for filing a frivolous law suit (ask Orly Taitz how that works).

You and Trump can have Larry Tribe.

I’ll see your Tribe and raise you the SCOTUS, two former Solicitor Generals of the United States of America, and one constitutional law professor, who not only taught at Harvard for 50 years, but had Tribe as a student, Alan Dershowitz. When asked about Cruz, he said he was absolutely brilliant and by far one of the best students that I have ever had. He has lathered similar, though not as thick, praise on Elizabeth Warren. Interestingly enough, Dershowitz never mentioned Tribe.

HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM: ‘On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’ written by former United States Solicitors General Neal Katyal (Al Gore and Barack Obama’s lawyer) & Paul Clement (Bush’s lawyer and one of the most respected and prominent conservative attorneys and members of the Supreme Court Bar in the country).

Lime in the Coconut on February 4, 2016 at 12:48 PM

I’m quite aware that it all seems to hinge on the First Congress in 1790 when the Congress in 1795 which included Madison said that the 1790 Congress basically made a typo by using the language from the wrong British act. the ‘natural-born’ language was removed from the 1795 Naturalization Act to correct the 1790 Act and no subsequent naturalization act has that language in it.

There’s a clip about the above on the previous page.

So along the way it has just been assumed that

(1) Madison doesn’t count as a founder
(2) definition of soil has changed
(3) if statutes state such-and-such ‘at birth’ ‘deemed’ or ‘considered’ a citizen means ‘natural-born’
(4) Papers and process are sole definition of ‘naturalization’.

MaggiePoo on February 4, 2016 at 1:58 PM

The Constitution only provides three classifications of citizens.

Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Natural born citizen.

Naturalized citizen.

If anyone tries to claim there is another category know that there is no Constitutional basis for it.

Mordaukar on February 4, 2016 at 5:55 PM

I’m quite aware that it all seems to hinge on the First Congress in 1790 when the Congress in 1795 which included Madison said that the 1790 Congress basically made a typo by using the language from the wrong British act. the ‘natural-born’ language was removed from the 1795 Naturalization Act to correct the 1790 Act and no subsequent naturalization act has that language in it.

There’s a clip about the above on the previous page.

MaggiePoo on February 4, 2016 at 1:58 PM

If you have the evidence of Madison making such a statement, please share. I’ve seen multiple people make such a claim, but I’ve never seen any evidence offered to support it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 4, 2016 at 5:56 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 4, 2016 at 5:56 PM

About the middle of this page

MaggiePoo on February 4, 2016 at 10:44 PM

ITguy on February 4, 2016 at 10:51 AM

If you put that much trust in a Justice of the Supreme Court, no matter how august, you are in for a rude awakening.

Read Plessy v Ferguson to understand. Or go over to Taney and read the Dredd Scot decision, in which Justice Taney states that even freed blacks are not citizens of the United States, nor can they obtain access to our court system. Or how about Wickard v. Filburn, in which the absence of commerce equals commerce. Or Motel of Atlanta v. United States, in which a person or business providing “public accomodation” is held to the standards to which our Government alone ought to be held. Or Korematsu v. United States, in which the Court held that a citizen could be incarcerated without having been charged or convicted of any crime.

There is no dearth of bad decisions by the Court.

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2016 at 12:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 2