Would the Founders Have Cared Where Ted Cruz Was Born?

The Atlantic ^ | Garrett Epps

[Nero Germanicus]

From beginning to end, the debate over Senator Ted Cruz and his birth certificate has been silly. Like the "birtherism" debate surrounding Barack Obama, it shows that many Americans think our Constitution is a Harry Potter book of spells ("Mandamus! Habeas Corpus! Nullus indviduus mandatus!"). The "natural born" citizen clause in particular appeals to the mythological imagination.

The clause is found in Article II § 1 cl. 5, which contains three and only three requirements for a potential president: He or she must be 35 years old, must have lived in the U.S. for 14 years, and must be "a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."

What was the reason behind this third requirement? Many people are convinced that the "purpose" of the Clause was to bar Alexander Hamilton (born in Nevis in the Caribbean) from the presidency. But the provision above says in so many words that anyone who is a citizen "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" can be president. Hamilton had become a citizen of New York by act of the legislature in 1782. He didn't become president largely on account of the whole being-shot-to-death-by-Burr thing.

In fact, in 1787, no one over 11 -- not George Washington, not John Adams, not Thomas Jefferson -- was a "natural born citizen" of something called "the United States of America." The first "natural born citizen" to enter the White House, by my count, was Martin Van Buren in 1836 -- who was born in 1782, five years before Philadelphia.

I don't think that the Framers were even thinking about potential presidents born to American parents abroad. Their concern was naturalized citizens, and it was a lot more immediate and urgent.

[Nero Germanicus]

Every American is a citizen by statute because there is a statute to define every contingency of citizenship.

For example, a majority of Americans are natural born citizens as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (a):
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”

Furthermore, as we know from the Supreme Court’s 1874 ruling in Minor v. Happersett, “The Constituition does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

[MosesKnows]

Would the Founders Have Cared Where Ted Cruz Was Born?

Yes, of course they would care.

Why did the founders add the natural born citizen requirement only for presidential candidates? That question is well worth the time it takes to discover the answer.

Representative - No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States

Senator - No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States,

President - 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Natural born doesn’t refer to the candidate’s place of birth; natural born refers to the place of birth of both of the candidate’s parents.

[PapaNew]

I don’t know - if both parents are U.S. citizens, I think historically the child was considered “natural born.” You’ve had some American families abroad (vacation, whatever) when a birth occurred and there was no issue about the baby being natural born.

[PapaNew]

Natural born doesn’t refer to the candidate’s place of birth; natural born refers to the place of birth of both of the candidate’s parents.

Right, but I think it's whether his parents are U.S. citizens not his parents place of birth.

[Jacquerie]

He was the Bill Clinton of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, a man of infinitely flexible principles.

That is the sort of gratuitous insult that could render your view of late 18th century events as infinitely infantile.

[Publius]

I’d be interested in your view of Burr.

[itsahoot]

when a birth occurred and there was no issue about the baby being natural born.

There was never any doubt about Citizenship, but there has always been doubt as to NBC status. I was in the Military 58 years ago and this came up in discussions frequently, I never new anyone that doubted that if we had children overseas, they would not be eligible to be President.

Think of all the Children our men left in various outposts.

[Jacquerie]

I’d be interested in your view of Burr.

Irrelevant.

I recall now your dark slamming from a couple years ago, of The Federalist' primary author.

[PapaNew]

the Children our men left in various outposts

Right but of course there you had only one parent as a U.S. citizen so not a "natural born" citizen.

[Sherman Logan]

The comparison is not a totally invalid one.

His relationships with women were not unlike Clinton’s, though he was more discreet. One of his biographers claims he had an incestuous relationship with his beautiful daughter. Impossible to prove (or disprove) at this point, but they certainly had an unusual relationship.

His abortive expedition into the West was probably an attempt to detach the Mississippi Valley from the United States and either sell it to UK or rule it as an independent state. He most certainly conspired with the American general and governor of LA (who was also treasonously working for Spain), and with the British ambassador, taking money from him.

Burr’s true intentions are unclear, and it is quite possible he was also betraying his British paymasters. But he was definitely up to something that was almost certainly illegal and unconstitutional, though it was not proven in court, largely due to Chief Justice Marshall imposing a remarkably strict definition of the crime of treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_conspiracy

[itsahoot]

Right but of course there you had only one parent as a U.S. citizen so not a "natural born" citizen.

You have defined Cruz to a tee. His father was not a citizen until I think, 2005.

[Unc1e_Ivan]

“Natural born doesn’t refer to the candidate’s place of birth; natural born refers to the place of birth of both of the candidate’s parents.

Right, but I think it’s whether his parents are U.S. citizens not his parents place of birth.”
_____

I finally realized about a year or so ago what “natural born” and “natural born citizen” means...

I grew up in Eastern Virginia (quite a few years ago), where many say the local lingo is, or was, still very similar to the King’s English from the Revolution days.

I remember one kid yelling at another, saying, “Yo’ Momma’s a thief! Yo’ Daddy’s a thief! You a “natural born” thief!”.

(Yes, these were white children. People forget that Southerners, whether black or white, sometimes have a particular patois...)

So, “natural born” doesn’t mean where one was born, but the status of one’s parents. A “natural born citizen” would be someone whose parents are both citizens, then. Too bad all the highly paid lawyers in DC or English professors have forgotten so much of our mother tongue...

FYI, Mark Levin had some good info about this, saying how we can blame John McCain and the RNC for Obama:

McCain wasn’t actually born at the US base in Panama, but as the base hospital was being repaired, his mother had to go downtown for the birth. Rather than letting the DNC make a big deal of this publicly during the 2008 campaign, McCain and the RNC privately agreed to not EVER make a big deal about Obama’s place of birth... Thank you, again, John McCain and the eGOP! /s

[yldstrk]

yeah true

[DiogenesLamp]

Every American is a citizen by statute because there is a statute to define every contingency of citizenship.

For example, a majority of Americans are natural born citizens as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (a):
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”

Oh! Well thanks for informing me of this. All this time I thought natural citizenship proceeded statutes, but now I see that I have it backwards. Obviously the citizenry didn't exist until 8 U.S.C. § 1401 came along to create us!

Furthermore, as we know from the Supreme Court’s 1874 ruling in Minor v. Happersett, “The Constituition does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

Well, Unless i'm mistaken, you are telling me it came from 8 U.S.C. § 1401. On the other hand, I think you would have us believe that the tail wags the dog.

[PapaNew]

Well if that’s true and if we want to live under the rule of law (better than the rule of man and his whims and the best until Jesus returns), then Cruz needs to stick to his “lesser” role where he’ll probably be more effective anyway.

[Nero Germanicus]

The discussion here is about the citizenship laws applicable to two modern day political figures: Barack Obama and Ted Cruz.
Everyone alive today who is a citizen of the United States of America falls under the provisions of the U.S. Code, first codified in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment and promulgated into statute law in 1952.

[MosesKnows]

not his parents place of birth

Incorrect. It has strictly to do with the parents’ place of birth.

The reason the founders added the natural born requirement to the president and not the congress is because the founders did not want a president with the potential of a divided allegiance.

The founders were very methodical in their vision for America. The founders wrote the Constitution in clear concise English grammar and it is inadvisable to second-guess the founders’ intent.

[DiogenesLamp]

The discussion here is about the citizenship laws applicable to two modern day political figures: Barack Obama and Ted Cruz. Everyone alive today who is a citizen of the United States of America falls under the provisions of the U.S. Code, first codified in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment and promulgated into statute law in 1952.

And having not a D@mned thing to do with "natural born citizen."

[MamaTexan]

The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Aside from the English common law is not federal law argument, Blackstone says the same thing.

1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king;
Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

Natural born subjects are born on the soil of England AND within the Allegiance of the King

How can you be born 'within' an Allegiance?

Because your parents are already there.

:-)

----

I guess I just don't understand why people find this so difficult. The law of inheritance is what entitled Kings to their crowns, allows us to inherit property from our parents and gives us legal rights over our children.

WHY does everyone act like it's some big, convoluted mystery that you inherit your citizenship the same way, and that inherited citizenship is a naturally born one?

[Nero Germanicus]

Oh, I think discussions of birthright citizenship and its relationship to the 44th President of the United States and a possible 45th President of the United States have everything to do with natural born citizenship.