Green Room

Birthers’ next target: Ted Cruz

posted at 2:04 pm on March 26, 2013 by

The man hasn’t even hinted that he’s planning to run for president, but by all means, let’s have a stupid, pointless fight over whether he’s a “natural born citizen” anyway:

Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.” Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen.

No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization — again, including Texas’s junior senator. Cruz, a constitutional lawyer, is unequivocal on the question. His press secretary, Catherine Frazier, tells National Review Online that, while a 2016 run is far from his mind right now — he’s “fully focused on his role representing Texans in the U.S. Senate” — there should be no confusion about his presidential eligibility. “He is a U.S. citizen by birth, having been born in Calgary to an American-born mother,” Frazier says.

In case you’re keeping score (and I am, over at Townhall), various birther sects have now scrutinized President Obama, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz, Gov. Bobby Jindal, and…Mitt Romney.  HuffPo nails it by labeling this movement “equal opportunity annoyers.”  Can we finally stop associating birtherism with conservatism?  Please?

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Well he needs to be targeted. He ain’t natural born…or native born…or something.

Its so hard to keep it straight without the help of dante and emperor norton.

This time, they will get the left to help them out.

cozmo on March 26, 2013 at 2:20 PM

You foolz he’s NOT eligible…no one since 2000 who has run is eligible…I demonstrated that with MATHEMATICAL precision. Plus, I know for a fact that Cruz and Bush, and quite possibly the Pope and the Queen, are in a conspiracy to replace the Dollar with the Amero.

JFKY on March 26, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Birthers’ started out as Hillary Clinton supporters trying to throw anything at Obama.

BigGator5 on March 26, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Why even call attention to this? Yet another example of the conservative media’s self-sabotage.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

The left circles the wagons and protects their own. The right ties dynamite to each other’s ankles and tosses matches.

tdarrington on March 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

It’s too bad they closed down all the nuthouses.

MelonCollie on March 26, 2013 at 2:55 PM

And McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

Steven Den Beste on March 26, 2013 at 2:55 PM

The bar was set with Obama, hence, birthers can go suck it.

44Magnum on March 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Plus, I know for a fact that Cruz and Bush, and quite possibly the Pope and the Queen, are in a conspiracy to replace the Dollar with the Amero.

JFKY on March 26, 2013 at 2:24 PM

All at the behest of the lizard people.

rbj on March 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I am a huge Cruz fan but the question should be was he born with dual American/Canadian citizenship? If so, then if you go by the Vattel definition of natural born meaning not owing allegiance to any other country at birth, then that means he’s not qualified. If he only had American citizenship at birth then he is natural born even if born abroad to his American citizen parents.

This sounds innocuous when Canada is the country. But what if we get a future candidate that was born in Iran to an America-hating Iranian jihadist father and an American citizen mother and given both Iranian and American citizenship at birth?

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Steebo, this at least shows that birtherism isn’t a partisan thing, as Democrats have claimed.

Guy Benson on March 26, 2013 at 3:34 PM

[sigh] Thanks for the name-calling GB. I really appreciate it. I find it fascinating that pretty much everyone you cited gets it wrong. It’s really very simple…

“Natural-born” citizen historically refers to a person who is born to parents who are both American citizens at the time of birth. The reason for this inclusion in the Constitution was to prevent Presidents from having an alternate allegiance to another country, such as with dual citizenship.

I have no idea whether Ted Cruz is “natural-born” or not, since I don’t know any details of his birth or parentage.

I’ll come back later to see how many people threaten to burn my house down or put me in the nuthouse or just plain shoot me just because I believe in following the Law as it was written, with the intent at the time it was written.

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 3:38 PM

No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization

So, that particular term of art as used in the Constitution has never been defined by a federal court decision and certainly not by the Supreme Court.

However, in the opinion of a bunch of people not wearing black robes “natural born” means citizen at birth. This means that there is a “consensus” and if you disagree you are a birther, a conspiracy nut job, insane.

The science is settled!

tommylotto on March 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Can we finally stop associating birtherism with conservatism?

Conservatives care about the Constitution.
So, no.
Not until the SCOTUS makes a definitive ruling on what “Natural Born Citizen” means in the context of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
In my mind Obama, Jundal, Rubio and Cruz are all not eligible.
You can see the article written by Breckenridge Long about Charles Evans Hughes in 1916.

Dexter_Alarius on March 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM

The problem is – that some conservatives as soon as they hear a new, exciting voice of conservatism they immediately have to start throwing his/her name out for POTUS.

It gets ridiculous – these people don’t even seem to care if that person has any: a) experience, b) a record we the people can look at and determine how they would govern c) any qualifications except they have great speeches.

Wonder why we got a junior senator without much of record, experience or qualifications who is NOW President.

Cripes, I am sick of hearing about the wannabees with out any record, experience (Rand Paul, Rubio, Cruz etc all come to mind).

Gives these people a chance to build their resume, experience and qualifications before you jump on any band wagon, kool-aid wagon.

bzip on March 26, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Birthers are NOT conservatives. Period.
Given a choice between a birther-doodle or a Dim…I’ll choose NEITHER and stay home.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

with the intent at the time it was written.

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 3:38 PM

See, when one has read the copious amounts of writings of the founders at this time regarding things like this, it isn’t hard to understand they wanted a person to have no alternate loyalties, meaning both parents are American. I seriously doubt they would ever had had any problem with a child born of American parents on foreign soil bcs the parents were diplomats, in the military, etc.
So Chester Arthur was a liar & a pretender.
As is Barry.
Anybody with foreign born parents quite simply should not be eligible to run for POTUS, nor anyone with one foreign born parent & the other being American.
Loyalty is the reason & loyalty ties & oaths & such were very important during these times, as they still should be, but of course most people these days are too ignorant to understand why this is an important point.

Badger40 on March 26, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Alright! The birthers constitutional scholars (like mullahs are Islamic scholars) are here. Now we can get this party started. Tinfoil hats for all who want them.

Granted, y’all ain’t in the same league as dante or emperor norton, but when it comes to birther nutballs, we ain’t picky.

cozmo on March 26, 2013 at 4:07 PM

This sounds innocuous when Canada is the country. But what if we get a future candidate that was born in Iran to an America-hating Iranian jihadist father and an American citizen mother and given both Iranian and American citizenship at birth?

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Why would a foreign country’s citizenship laws determine who is and isn’t eligible to be U.S. President. If Iran decided to grant Iranian citizenship to all males born in the state of Texas, would that prohibit any Texan male from becoming President. You indicate that anyone with Dual Citizenship or even potential dual citizenship is inelligble to be U.S. President. Therefore, you are saying that foreign citizenship laws determine who is and isn’t a natural born Citizen.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 26, 2013 at 4:07 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on March 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

They are too!

Oh wait, I thought you wrote constipated…never mind.

Its a good thing you weren’t here earlier. Katy teased you endlessly. I defended your honor as best I could.

cozmo on March 26, 2013 at 4:10 PM

So, no.
Not until the SCOTUS makes a definitive ruling on what “Natural Born Citizen” means in the context of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
Dexter_Alarius on March 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM

What the Supreme Court would decide is as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The reason it is predictable is that the interests of the left-wing progressives are perfectly aligned with the originalist interpretation that is favored by the right.

Simply put, “natural born” will be read by originalists as meaning born as an American citizen at the time of birth. This is certainly the plain meaning of the text. To put it another way, adding in some sort of dual citizenship disqualification is an additional, unnatural addition to the text of the Constitution.

What is often overlooked by Birthers is that the qualifications for being a citizen at birth when born outside of the U.S. are actually set by law in Congress. And these change over time. At one point dual citizenship may have been a disqualification for automatic American citizenship, but it certainly hasn’t been that way for the timeframe relevant to the birth of modern candidates.

As for the left wing of the court, they will shun anything that can get them accused of being a nativist at a cocktail party.

Nessuno on March 26, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Steebo, this at least shows that birtherism isn’t a partisan thing, as Democrats have claimed.

Guy Benson on March 26, 2013 at 3:34 PM

The origins of Obama birtherism in the Clinton ’08 camp already proved that. Democrats made such a big deal out of post-2008 birtherism by Republicans that they can’t really stick their neck out on this with Cruz and have any credibility. What it does reinforce, whether true or not, is that there is a “dark vein of intolerance” in the Republican Party. I can just hear Colin Powell and Chris Matthews now.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Badger40 on March 26, 2013 at 4:04 PM

What’s funny is I just finished reading up on the early Naturalization Acts to make sure I hadn’t mis-stated the original intent. I found something quite interesting…

The Naturalization Act of 1790 expressly states 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“.

If you look at the language used, you can deduce that the Act was to resolve the question raised about McCain’s natural born citizen status… that as long as a child was born to two American citizens, they were considered as natural born citizens even if not born on American soil. It is not the birth on American soil that confers “natural born citizen” status, but the being born to two parents who are both American citizens.

The later Naturalization Act of 1795 changed some of the 1790 Act, but the language only mentioned “citizens”, not “natural born citizens” because the 1795 Act specifically addressed the granting of citizenship. Natural born citizenship cannot be granted.

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM

I have no idea whether Ted Cruz is “natural-born” or not, since I don’t know any details of his birth or parentage.
dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Gee… if only there were some way to learn details about Cruz’ birth or parentage. Oh… what is this before me. Why it’s the article dominigan was commenting on.

Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, …“He is a U.S. citizen by birth, having been born in Calgary to an American-born mother,”

dominigan, you didn’t even have to click on the link. Guy provided the relevant sentances in the passage he block quoted on this page. Keep you with your “just asking questions” schtick.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 26, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Alright! The birthers constitutional scholars (like mullahs are Islamic scholars) are here. Now we can get this party started. Tinfoil hats for all who want them.

Granted, y’all ain’t in the same league as dante or emperor norton, but when it comes to birther nutballs, we ain’t picky.

cozmo on March 26, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Let me guess, the only movies you watch are ones with fart and vomit jokes. Try to elevate your thinking a little and stop embarrassing yourself. I’m not a Constitutional scholar, I just picked it up and read a little, and researched from there. It’s not hard, just a little mental activity and curiosity are needed…

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 4:24 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 26, 2013 at 4:23 PM

I read the article, and the quoted part, and it answered exactly half the question. If you read my comment, especially the section I bolded for you on the Naturalization Act of 1790, you would know that it takes TWO American citizen parents at the time of birth to qualify for natural born citizen status. Since you profess to know all things…

Was Cruz’s Cuban father an American citizen at the time of Cruz’s birth?

Your answer determines his natural born citizen status. If you can find that answer in the article, I apologize in advance for missing it.

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 4:37 PM

From the National Review article, here is a list of people questioning Cruz’ eligibility:

Donald Trump, Denizens of birthers.org (who laud him “as one hell of a Senator”, denizens of obamareleaseyourrecords.com, Fox News Channel’s Carl Cameron, Ann Coulter(later corrected herself)… That’s it.

So in a nutshell the people questioning Cruz’ eligibility: noone anyone would/should listen to.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 26, 2013 at 4:38 PM

You’re telling me somebody’s going after Cruz with wild baseless allegations born out of paranoia and conspiracy? All irony meters everywhere just broke!

lester on March 26, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Dexter_Alarius on March 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM

What grade are you in?

Congress can pass a bill today definding what “the people” means if they wanted to. They didn’t, so the SCOTUS had to do it for them.

They have define “Natural Born Citizen” (Naturalization Act of 1790), including those born abroad, and both will hold up to Constitutional challenge.

BigGator5 on March 26, 2013 at 4:42 PM

It’s not hard, just a little mental activity and curiosity are needed…

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 4:24 PM

You mean being a birther isn’t hard. It only demands twisting documents while channeling the founding fathers original intent. I’ll pass on juvenile movies and have fun with birthers instead.

cozmo on March 26, 2013 at 4:43 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 26, 2013 at 4:38 PM

You didn’t answer the question. I don’t care about what other people think. I care about the truth. Do you? I can think for myself, research for myself, and defend myself.

Oh, and I like Cruz. I’m glad he’s standing up to liberals. That’s why I don’t understand why everyone is all up in arms and starting immediately with the name-calling.

I think this is probably a liberal trick to divide Republicans, and lots of people here are falling for it.

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 4:49 PM

cozmo on March 26, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Really? I didn’t follow the lemming crowd shouting “birther”. I went and read the Constitution and looked up the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 and applied it. Since you admit to wanting to have fun with those seeking the truth, I can only assume evil intent on your part and will not converse any more with you on the subject.

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 4:37 PM

1. Is the Naturalization Act of 1790 still in effect? I believe you already said that it was later replaced. I imagine the last 200+ years it has been changed or replaced by subsequent statutes. What value does a voided and replaced act of congress have?

2. Quote from article: “42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father.”

3. Doesn’t matter what nationality his father was. Did Cruz have the quality of U.S. Citizenship since birth? If yes, then he is a natural born Citizen. The court’s have recognized only two possibilities: a)citizen from birth (natural born Citizen), or b) naturalized Citizen.

4. Your reliance on the Naturalization Act of 1790 is misplaced. If we took your argument that only that act provides the understanding of who is and is not a natural born Citizen, then every president after John Tyler would have been ineligible. The act states: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond seaor out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens“.
That passage means that natural born Citizens are only those born: 1)abroad; and 2) children of U.S. citizens. This definition leaves out all those persons born on U.S. soil. Therefore under your definition, every president not subject to the grandfather clause (“or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”)

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Why would a foreign country’s citizenship laws determine who is and isn’t eligible to be U.S. President. If Iran decided to grant Iranian citizenship to all males born in the state of Texas, would that prohibit any Texan male from becoming President. You indicate that anyone with Dual Citizenship or even potential dual citizenship is inelligble to be U.S. President. Therefore, you are saying that foreign citizenship laws determine who is and isn’t a natural born Citizen.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 26, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Your example about Iran/Texas is ridiculous, but you know that.

Let me rephrase for simple minds:

If you (or your parents on your behalf) ACCEPT dual citizenship at birth then you have ACCEPTED divided loyalties and you would not be considered natural born according to the founders.

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Just for fun, let me point out that the last president who fulfilled the conditions set forth in A2S1C5 (“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”) was Martin van Buren.

Everyone else was born too late. The comma before the “at” makes the “at the time of…” apply to both groups equally.

PersonFromPorlock on March 26, 2013 at 5:05 PM

I can only assume evil intent on your part and will not converse any more with you on the subject.

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM

You birthers always fall back on that then stick your fingers in your ears and sing la-la-la-la the rest of the day.

cozmo on March 26, 2013 at 5:11 PM

If you (or your parents on your behalf) ACCEPT dual citizenship at birth then you have ACCEPTED divided loyalties and you would not be considered natural born according to the founders.

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 5:03 PM

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. In Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325 (1939), the Court determined that a parent cannot renounce the citizenship (or effect the U.S. citizenship in any way) of their U.S. citizen child. Nothing a parent or some foreign government can do to change your U.S. citizenship status.

My example still holds. Just calling it “ridiculous” does not advance your argument. In legal briefing, you should deal with the each opposing argument or risk conceding the point. If the other side makes a “ridiculous” argument you should use that opportunity to hit it out of the park and make your opponent look like a fool. Just calling the argument “ridciulous” without laying down the reasons why it is “ridiculous” is a wasted opportunity.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 26, 2013 at 5:21 PM

If you read my comment, especially the section I bolded for you on the Naturalization Act of 1790, you would know that it takes TWO American citizen parents at the time of birth to qualify for natural born citizen status.

That is not what it says.

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:

The word TWO is not in there anywhere. The plural citizens is referring to all those individual citizens that might have children outside of the country. Any child of any individual citizen that is born elsewhere would have been considered citizens. This is further evidence by the next phrase:

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

That stipulation would have hardly been necessary if it was understood that both parents had to be citizens. Rather the intent seems to be that as long as either parent was a citizen and the father had at some time resided in the U.S. then the child would be considered a natural born citizen.

PatientWolf on March 26, 2013 at 5:25 PM

My example still holds. Just calling it “ridiculous” does not advance your argument. In legal briefing, you should deal with the each opposing argument or risk conceding the point. If the other side makes a “ridiculous” argument you should use that opportunity to hit it out of the park and make your opponent look like a fool. Just calling the argument “ridciulous” without laying down the reasons why it is “ridiculous” is a wasted opportunity.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 26, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Sorry, but I’m not a scumbag lawyer. I think any non-lawyer normal person would think that Iran forcing Texans to be Iranians would be very “ridiculous”.

I also don’t really care about any cases changing the intent of the founders. Just because it is case law doesn’t make it right. There are many examples: Dred Scott, Kelo, Roe, etc.

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Sorry, but I’m not a scumbag lawyer.
mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 5:29 PM

That explains much.

cozmo on March 26, 2013 at 5:32 PM

. I think any non-lawyer normal person would think that Iran forcing Texans to be Iranians would be very “ridiculous”.

They’re not ‘forcing” they ae granting Iranian citizenship, and by your rule you just made them INELIGIBLE.

It’s called argumentation…..

JFKY on March 26, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.”

The person in this case was born an American citizen to two naturalized American citizens. Sometime during her life her father renounced his citizenship and then when she came back to America they tried to deny her US citizenship based on her father’s actions. That is totally different than being born with dual citizenship.

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 5:33 PM

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 5:34 PM

They’re not ‘forcing” they ae granting Iranian citizenship, and by your rule you just made them INELIGIBLE.

It’s called argumentation…..

JFKY on March 26, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Well if any Texas was dumb enough to ACCEPT Iranian citizenship then they are obviously not qualified to be POTUS.

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM

That explains much.

cozmo on March 26, 2013 at 5:32 PM

How so?

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Well if any Texas was dumb enough to ACCEPT Iranian citizenship then they are obviously not qualified to be POTUS.

NOT FOLLOWING…they don’t have to ‘accept” iran GRANTS them citizenship…see how this works?

JFKY on March 26, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Over at Right Scoop several months ago, there were a bunch that say he’s not a citizen. Not sure if they still post there…

I was roundly hooted, attacked, ganged up on…. all one evening when I presented the phrase in the Constitution that proves he is. Of course, they thought the same of Jindal and Rubio.

I don’t post there any more.

avagreen on March 26, 2013 at 5:41 PM

How so?

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Because American law, common law before it, is a beautiful thing.

Those who don’t understand it usually call those who know it scumbags.

cozmo on March 26, 2013 at 5:42 PM

NOT FOLLOWING…they don’t have to ‘accept” iran GRANTS them citizenship…see how this works?

JFKY on March 26, 2013 at 5:37 PM

No actually, I don’t. If you are born in Iran and are GRANTED Iranian citizenship then if you don’t want it you can renounce it. If you ACCEPT it then you are signaling to them that you will be a citizen of their country and presumably have some LOYALTY to Iran.

If you are born in the US to US citizen parents then no one can force you to accept the citizenship of another country. It is patently unenforceable henceforth every tinpot dictator is not making everyone in the world a citizen of their country and demanding that taxes be paid to them.

Sorry, I’m just a normal person. And to be clear, I don’t hate ALL Lawyers (after all, Ted Cruz is a lawyer). Just most of them.

mrsmwp on March 26, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Birtherism is the hope for a legal “easy button” to make 0bama and all his works go away with the bang of some judge’s gavel. There are no easy buttons.

Sekhmet on March 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2