Skip to comments.Vanity - Sen Ted Cruz is natural Born Citizen!!!
Posted on 03/06/2013 1:26:12 PM PST by Perdogg
Sen Ted Cruz's mother was a US Citizen at the time of his birth, therefore he is nBC! He just said on Hannity he was a US Citizen at time of birth.
Interestinger and interestinger. (Or more and more interesting for the grammar nazis.)
If this turns out to be the case, Cruz would be at the very top of my list of favored candidates. He has the guts, the communication skills, and the experience to run a great campaign and be a great leader.
The birthers will disagree.
Yeah, Walker’s “inner Wisconsin liberal” will pop out at the darndest times....so he’s great for Wisconsin, but he ain’t the national answer. Cruz on the other hand....no inner Wisconsin liberal inside that man I’m fairly sure.
It would help their case if they would do 2 things:
A: get someone of the ilk of Cucinelli or Levin to EVER agree with them on NBC status......and
B: Quit muddying up the issue of NBC and the place of birth of the actual person in question.
According to birthers, Cruz fails the criteria on two accounts. 1) Only his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. His father was a Cuban immigrant to the U.S. 2) Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada - his parents were there on business with the oil business.
IBTZ (of the birther entourage).
His path to citizenship pretty much finishes him.
One only needs to be born a U.S. citizen rather than have to be naturalized as a citizen.
That has always been the rule as the Constitution only mentioned or envisioned THREE types of U.S. citizen.
One type were those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. They are all dead.
Currently there are only TWO types of U.S. citizen - those who were born U.S. citizens and those who had to be naturalized as citizens.
He was indeed a US citizen at birth, but did he claim to be ‘natural born’ as well?
In what way?
Being a natural born citizen used to require having both parents be US citizens.
That’s a nice spin for the pro-Rubio, Jindal, Cruz types, but it is at least open to debate, considering that the language used in the Constitution for only issue of the presidency fits with the higher standard that the term was commonly known to mean at the time.
Cruz was BORN a U.S. citizen. He was not naturalized at any point in his life.
I did not write what you just quoted.
Yes, he was born a US citizen, but he does not appear to meet the standard of ‘natural born citizen’ as was used and applied at the writing of the Constitution.
I doubt it will be enforced, as Obama, at least by his public story of his origins, failed to meet it and is quite obviously holding office today—and I expect it’s just another bit of the Constitution that will be ignored.
The term “natural born” applied to most of the founding fathers - they were “natural born” subjects of England - most of whom were NOT born in England. Obviously the term as they understood it did not include having to be born in the nation. According to English law birth place was not the primary consideration - as one Brit pointed out when people said he was Irish (he was born in Ireland) “being born in a barn doesn’t make one a horse.”.
The “higher standard” still applies just as when the Constitution was written - of the three types of citizen the Constitution establishes - naturalized citizens are excluded from the Presidency.
Is Sen Ted Cruz a naturalized citizen? No. He is not.
Huh? I'd not heard that about Cruz. Here's what I've seen from Sen. Cruz on that...
I appreciate the good work that senators in both parties have put into trying to fix our broken immigration system. There are some good elements in this proposal, especially increasing the resources and manpower to secure our border and also improving and streamlining legal immigration. However, I have deep concerns with the proposed path to citizenship. To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally.
Yes, McCain in my book was a NBC.
Of course, my book isn’t as authoritative as Vattel, except for its being based on Vattel.
Cruz served Texas honorably as Solictor General. He defended Texas before the Supreme Court, to keep the so-called International Court of in-Justice from interfering in the death sentences handed down against murderering foreign nationals, Medlin v Texas. He also clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Cruz is well-spoken, communicates conservatism effectively and fiercely defends the Constitution with vigor and enthusiasm. All qualities the next Republican presidential nominee will need in abundance.
You are correct, but there are many birthers who maintain that McCain was not “natural born” because he was born in Panama (even though both of his parents were U.S. citizens).
The purist birthers hold that you must be born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.
There are variants. Some birthers are okay with your being born outside of the country to U.S. citizens as McCain was. A few birthers are okay with your being born in the U.S. to parents, one of which was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth.
I believe that being born a U.S. citizen according to the Constitution is the same as being “natural born”. If you have always been a U.S. citizen since the second you were born, you are “natural born” irregardless of the status of your parents.
Sorry, I meant that as a reply to Post 12.
It does no such thing.
I agree. There are two natural law concepts that determine citizenship at birth, place and parentage. Any combination sufficient to be a natural born citizen is born a U.S. citizen with natural allegiance to the U.S.A.. The only other way to become a U.S. citizen to be “naturalized” into that state of natural allegiance.
Me too. Whatever we do, we have to unify fast. The money is obviously going to be behind Jeb.
It will be a great day for the USA when/if the government gets back to what it used to be and people are not looking to get around the Constitution and subvert it for personal political purposes or interpretations.
The Constitution mentions natural born citizens, those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and naturalized citizens. It makes no mention of any other type of U.S. citizen.
So was Obama's.
C’mon, you know if he runs the Left will suddenly discover the “natural born” clause and raise a humongeous stink and sue if he wins (with John Roberts likely casting the fifth vote to toss him).
I thought we? Who, you and Karl Rove? That team?
I'm thanking God and my lucky Texas stars for Senator Ted Cruz!
A couple weeks back on Rush Limbaugh some liberal believed natural born meant the child was born vaginally. however a child born by c-section was not naturally born. I know the difference being a conservative and so forth. but thought to put the liberal view out there about natural born (sometimes ignorance is a real problem).
My records of Vattel writtings show his arguments were ‘The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens’. We must have different versions of what Vattel defined as ‘natural born’. Along with other readings about this Constitutional requirement I will consider my take on Vattel as being more rigidly accurate and appropriate.
OK, I got you. I just always assumed those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were a sub catagory of natural born citizens not seperate. Either way, we agree there are now only two types.
I believe Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution features national security provisions crucial to the long-term integrity and sovereignty of the United States of America.
What is the operative definition of 'natural born Citizen' in the context of the Constitution and on what do you base your answer?
Do you need me to find for you the section where he says that those born of soldiers serving their nation overseas are deemed to be born in country for such purposes?
What do I get when I find it for you? Will you admit you were wrong?
What Difference Does it make!?!?!
That is just great--because I am a strong Cruz fan.
Did he happen to give you a USCA citation which provides for how he got to be a U S Citizen at Birth?
There are two issues here: One, was he a citizen when he was born; and Two, was he a "Natural Born Citizen" within the meaning of Article II, Sec. 1 of the U S Constitution. Which issue are we talking about?
And we don't know all the facts with respect to the current hot issue which is citizen at birth.
What we do know is that he had a mother and father who were married to each other; that his mother was a U S Citizen; that his father was not a U S Citizen; and that Cruz himself was not born within the confines of the several states.
What we do not know is the exact date of his birth; the exact date of the birth of his mother; and the amount of time his mother was a resident of the United States after age 14.
The question of citizenship at birth turns on the citizenship statute in effect at the time he was born. I believe that statute provided that a person who was the son of a citizen mother, non-citizen father, is a citzen at birth only if the mother had resided in the United States for five years after the age of 14. That is in part based on an assumption about Kruz's birth date--the statutory perameters changed at various times in the 60's and 70's. The effective date for the amendments of the statute are in the USCA footnotes for anyone who chooses to look.
There are two further problems with the statute.
The consensus of the Constitutional Law Bar (per the Cornell Law Review article on the subject) is that the statute is unconstitutional because a father citizen's child would not have the same rights if the mother was not a citizen.
And, further, the Congressional Research Service opinion on the topic attempts to equate citizenship at birth with Natural Born Citizenship at Law. There are several reasons why that reasoning is faulty. But one of the principal reasons as one of the posters to which this is addressed infers above, may be that Congresses only power over citizenship is naturalization--thus if Congress seeks to make a person who is not a Natural Born Citizen a citizen at birth even though such person was born outside the geographical limits of the several states, such citizenship is by naturalization and not Natural Born.
Absent a naturalization proceeding (which has not happened in the case of Cruz) Cruz is a citizen only if the mother citizen statute is constitutional and his mother meets the statutory test to confer citizenship--and citizenship (for a term of years--I believe 9) is required to be eligible to hold the office of United States Senator. Both questionable.
Further, as to issue #2, Natural Born under Article I: Birth outside the United States resolves the issue against him.
Let him announce soon and see what the dems say
As to defining what is “natural born” - Vattel in 212 is more accurately translated as “indigenous or natives”. There is nothing in the original French that could be accurately translated to “natural born” which was the common term in English law for one born a citizen.
Were Cruz’s parents,either one, in a foreign country fighting or even representing for the USA? I will be waiting for you to find the words of Vattel that supersede the actual quote I cited. I believe the Constitution was a very good resoned and constructed document for times then and now.
Yes the Constitution was extremely well reasoned, and only those who were citizens at the time of the adoption and natural born citizens were qualified for the Presidency. This leaves out the only other type of citizen the Constitution provides for, those being naturalized citizens.
Do you contend that Senator Cruz is a naturalized citizen? What type of citizen do you suppose Senator Cruz is? Based upon what law?
Cruz was born in Canada to parents weren’t working in the oil industry while there. Unlike McCain whose parents were in the military or Obama who supposedly was born in HI. Cruz’s father didn’t become a naturalized citizen until 2005.
If we fail to throw him out on this basis, his Presidency will set the new precedent in practice. The USSC swore him in twice.
It will then become the standard Constitutional interpretation that NBC = born to at least one full US citizen.
It will do us no good to restrict ourselves and our selections when the USSC will have already set precedence for that standard with Obama and a de facto definition of what NBC may include.
Let's run Cruz/Rubio if they're up to the task. The libs will regret the precedent they allowed go be set with Obama.
“Cruz/Rand 2016” Yes please!
No more Bushes.
Also, John Bolton as Sec State and Sarah Palin as Sec Energy... to disband it.
Rubio IMO is very much NOT up to the task. An overambitious and duplicitous pro-amnesty Bush property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.