Skip to comments.National Review Online: The Cruz Birthers
Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mothers citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitutions requirement that the president of the United States be a natural-born citizen, a term the Framers didnt define and for which the nations courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.
Legal scholars are firm about Cruzs eligibility. Of course hes eligible, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. Hes 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. Cruzs 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
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I was wondering where you studied Constitutional law?
McCain ran. Zero is now in the White House.
Cruz can be president. The senate will allow him.
You did a good analysis of the article and refutal of dershowitz’s angle.
There’s reference to “ natural born citizen” in the Minor vs. Happersett court case.
I’m not concerned if someone calls it “dicta”, at least a court looked at the issue and put their analysis in writing.
(P.s. don’t feed the trolls!)
Does not anyone find it odd that so many of the top possible candidates or past candidates are of questionable NBC status? It almost seems like a plot to pic no one besides questionable people.
I guess all the libs and lefties that said birthers were nuts will get to wear the shoe on the other foot soon. Ironic isn’t it?... Lol
This is the time to defend our Constitution; it is not the time to be searching for ways to attempt to further empower elitist, unelected judges.
“Does not anyone find it odd that so many of the top possible candidates or past candidates are of questionable NBC status?”
Yes. It’s appalling. Ted Cruz was born with three citizenships and allegiances.
Yes, I have noticed it, and I find it disconcerting.
I guess all the libs and lefties that said birthers were nuts will get to wear the shoe on the other foot soon. Ironic isn’t it?... Lol
If many Freepers can’t decipher what a natural born citizen is, how can we expect the LIVs to understand?
Carry on and thank you for the post.
Yes, it’s really too bad that people are so dumbed-down that they can’t see that the Founders made a distinction between the President and Senators and House members when it came to qualifications. I have YET to see anyone explain the difference.
If any of you are a “low information” citizen, please read the constitutional requirements for President, as opposed to Senators and Congressmen, and tell me WHY the President is required to be a “natural born citizen” and the others are just required to be “citizens.”
No, it is the same thing that happened to the Roman Empire. It took only 110 years for their first Emperor to come from outside of Rome.
But since they've never understood the issue anyway, judging by their articles on the subject, what would one expect!
4 if you count The Texas Republic!
Yeah, I am sure young Ted was singing “Oh Canada” /s
It took a while to get here. The last ~40 yrs of public education has been leading up to this moment. Kids have been taught to devalue citizenship, to the extent it has nothing to do w being raised by foreign and/or anti-American parents, but only to do w over which patch of dirt a baby was dropped. As if being raised American, with a knowledge of our traditions, history & mindset plays no part in it at all.
Then they’ve been carefully guarded from critical-rational thinking skills, taught that everything is relative/subjective, and above all indoctrinated to believe that all discrimination is wrong/bad/evil. Thus, to discriminate against the citizen children of foreigners is an unthinkable evil in the minds of the last 2 generations, at least.
You have a few older conservatives who ought to know better but who jumped on the anti-discrimination bandwagon, and now try to convince others that it represents the Framers’ thinking. As if the Framers cared more about PC than guarding the country from chief executives w foreign allegiances. People in the last category are the ones most wanting in intellectual depth & fiber. The rest can blame their public school indoctrination. Above a certain age, it’s just weak thinking—provided actual *thinking* plays any part in it at all.
a child born in NYC to 2 French citizens would be deemed a US citizen by location of birth... but could also claim French citizenship due to the parents
if this person were able to be president, then it would be possible for the king of France to become president of the US, assuming he still existed.
this is the situation the founders were determined to strictly prevent... hence the wording
It seems to me (simple guy that I am) that there are only two ways to become a citizen. One is through “naturalization” and the other is to be born a citizen. Anyone accepted as a citizen without “naturalization” is natural born like Senator Cruz who serves in the Senate (you have to be a citizen for that) but has not been “naturalized.” QED - He’s a “natural born citizen” and clearly eligible for the Presidency (he’s over 35, isn’t he?). Why/how can it be any more complicated than this?
My sons were born in the US to me and my wife who is a German national and permanent US resident. I find it hard to accept that neither of them is eligible to run for president. Both are over 35 and have never lived on foreign soil. Tell me it isn’t true.
I find it very odd and very unlikely to happen by chance. Someone is arranging the deck chairs.
Speak the Truth, Brother!
As pointed out, Cruz’s citizenship is defined by statute. The statute specifies “citizen”, not “natural born citizen”
NBC folk are just scab pickers.
They’d provide a better service supporting Cruz, etc.
It gives me the heebies jeebies and has for some time.
“My sons were born in the US to me and my wife who is a German national and permanent US resident.”
Did your wife ever become a naturalized U.S. Citizen, especially before your sons were born?
Did it ever occur to you that Alan Dershowitz (liberal; youngest full professor of law in Harvard's history) and Eugene Volokh (conservative who supported Fred Thompson; former clerk for Reagan-appointed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) might know they're talking about, and you don't?
As I've pointed out many times, it's not really that complicated, and virtually everyone who has ever studied the issue, both conservative and liberal, comes real close to agreeing on all aspects of the meaning of "natural born citizen." No, it doesn't take two citizen parents for those born on US soil.
The only people in creation who don't agree are a bunch of quack law theorists, virtually none of whom have any legal training at all.
And yes, I know. There's one guy on the face of the earth, who can't even explain why he says it takes 2 citizen parents plus birth on US soil, but he does. And he taught Constitutional law somewhere. And his opinion trumps that of practically every other person who could be called a legal expert in the whole of US history, including folks who were EXTREMELY close to the Founders such as William Rawle and St. George Tucker.
Sorry, but's all BS. You are misrepresenting and twisting the Constitution and the law.
Speaking of which, I am currently compiling a list of fallacies used to support this BS claim, along with explanations of exactly WHY they are fallacies.
I am up to 39 of them so far.
I love Ted! He makes the lefties froth at the mouth and piss all over themselves!
One doesn’t have to study Constitutional law to understand how the Supreme Court unanimously defined the single Constitutional term of natural-born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The only allowance they made is that the children born abroad of citizen parents are “considered as” natural-born citizens in the Naturalization Act of 1790, however this required the father to be a citizen first.
It is more complicated than your simple analysis because the courts have not ruled on whether or not those who obtain their citizenship at birth by federal statute - as opposed to the Constitution - are natural-born citizens under the meaning of the Constitution and therefore eligible to the presidency.
So states the Foreign Affairs manual of the U.S. Department of State.
And interestingly, the Congress took the wording out of the 1795 edition of the act.
Very good. Thank you. It’s disturbing why so many people can’t see the plain words of the Constitution.
The “Framers” made it plain for a reason.
See http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/ for much insight.
Perhaps a better question is to ask how the founders stumbled into redundancy? ... As if
Thanks for the link! Looks like a fascinating article. I only read the first several pp. I plan to read the entire piece when time permits. It’s just the kind of reading/subject matter I enjoy most.
Dershowitz is correct. "NBC" is directly tied and interchangeable with citizens at birth, always has been, even for Vattel. He also called NBC "natives."
NBC is also not immutable and definable by federal law. Always has been. In fact the very first Congress and President Washington did so to include those born overseas to citizen parents in 1798.
You remind me of the big, nasty, blue flies that hatch out in the early spring when the warm piles of manure sprinkle the greening fields. You buzz in at every chance to defend your illegitimate bastard boy pResident and pretend to be a conservative in the bargain! BTW, in Tennessee we call the blue flies ‘shitflies’, for obvious reasons, they carry shit with them on their feet wherever they settle from buzzing.
I thought we had settled this with Romney the First, George.
He was physically born in Mexico, of legal American parents. Still Supreme Court found him eligible to run for President, not that he got very far. Same question was raised about McCain, born in the Panama Canal zone, and that got shot down even more quickly.
I’m happy to have Cruz as one of my Senators, I’m not sure I’d support him for a Presidential race, but my opinion, that door should be open to him.
Remember, none of our first 13 Presidents would have qualified under a strict reading. George Washington was not “born” in the United States, it didn’t exist at the time of his birth.
I am done with the “birther issue”. You don’t like Obama, you should have worked harder to defeat him.
What will the libs and lefties be saying?
and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.
There's an emphasis on the fathers being citizens at the time of birth in order for the child to be a citizen at birth and this is true home and abroad. It leaves out the present WH occupant and several possible contenders.
They are both perfectly eligible to run for President, on fulfilling the other qualifications: 35 years of age, and 14 years a resident of the United States.
There is a fairly large contingent of mythspinners here, who claim it takes birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. Some of them post literally dozens of pages of fallacious arguments. I am in process of trying, slowly, to document these. I've got 39 so far, and have no doubt that I'm nowhere near done.
Early legal authorities and other writers are virtually unanimous in saying that being a "natural born citizen" or eligible to the Presidency meant or required being "born on US soil" or "born a citizen."
As far as I'm aware, the ONLY early "authority" who said differently was a physician, historian and politican named David Ramsay, who at least sort of argued otherwise... although he really wasn't even arguing about the children born in the after-Revolution United States of immigrant parents.
Ramsay was running a sore-loser campaign to try and disqualify one of the guys who beat him for a seat in the US House of Representatives. That was the obvious purpose of his little "treatise on citizenship." And he was voted down 36 to 1 in a vote led by Father of the Constitution James Madison. So Ramsay's opinion was officially judged by one of our most prominent Founding Fathers as being absolutely worthless.
Against this there are literally dozens of more competent voices, including a few that are abundantly clear, like that of William Rawle, early American legal expert who met regularly with Washington and Franklin to discuss politics and law, and who was in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention:
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
On the face of it, it seems a slam dunk. Cruz was not born in Hawaii, so he's ineligible. But in the back of my mind there is the nagging possibility that his American Citizen mother may have consumed a Dole Pineapple Product while she was carrying a Cuban Citizen's baby, thus qualifying Cruz as natural born under the Pineapple Amendment, Cuban addendum. It could also cover Rubio. Unfortunately for Jindal, there is no Curry Clause (that I know of.)
Yo, Tony Scalia, how about a little help here? The real question is that if one is born to two American citizens, on American Territory, but not in Hawii, and ya mudda hated pineapple, are you still eligible for welfare in Tennessee?
Two words for young Ted: See ya. What's wrong with your Senate job anyway? You're eligible for that!
In the Minor vs. Happersett court case, the court talked about people born in the u.s. whose parents were citizens, referring to them as “natural born citizens”.
The court said even if “natural born citizen” wasn’t directly defined in the constitution, there was background material they referred to that supported the “born in u.s. to American citizen parent’s” position.
I.e. the court said the writers of the constitution and writers of that time did know the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”.
When did the Supreme Court ever rule on George Romney? I’ve never read that.
Okay n00b, show us where the Supremne Court ruled on George Romney’s eligibility. Go ahead, show us. You n00b Internet workers buzz into these threads at FR thinking you can lie as openly as you do elsewhere. So, show us where the Supreme Court ruled on Geroge Romney’s citizenship status as ‘Natural Born’.
Oh my, whatever will we do with you. Not drinking your serving of obamanoid koolaid?
I wonder, could you get Ted to make a public comment on how much his mother liked pineapple while she was preggers with him? ... There might be an ‘absorption clause’ that could be brought to bear.
A Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force, in Pennsylvania
Samuel Roberts (1817)
The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth; 12. but remain in the condition of their parents; however, the naturalization of the father naturalizes all his children, who are in their minority and dwelling within the United States.
12. In this particular our laws differ from the English laws; but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature. It is presumed, says Vattel, that every citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of their becoming members. The country of the fathers is that of the children; and they become true citizens by their tacit consent." In order to be of the country it is necessary, that a person be born of a Father who is a citizen, for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be the place of his birth, and not his country. By the laws of nature alone children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter in to all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him. Law of Nations, B. 1. c. XIX
That's funny. You remind me of Saul Alinsky, PT Barnum, and Crystal Gail Mangum.