CNN: Why Ted Cruz Is Eligible To Be pPresident

CNN ^ | January 14, 2016

[Behind the Blue Wall]

As soon as you make reference to a “statute” in arguing about the meaning a constitutional provision, I immediately dismiss your argument as bunk. Congress cannot change, alter or even interpret that meaning of the Constitution.

[Cboldt]

Amar's argument is an exercise in sophistry. He exports the power of Congress to be the sole judge the qualifications of it's own members, into the proposition that Congress has the power to seat an unqualified president, and nothing can be done about it. So much for checks and balances.

Plus, see cases where candidates have been excluded from ballots on age, residency, or obviously being naturalized, having gone through a naturalization process. Amar would say that is unconstitutional, because only Congress has the power to judge the qualifications or a president.

[RC one]

Not possible according to Blackstone's definition of Natural Born Citizen and he specifically says as much.

When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62

1765

[libertylover]

Laughable! CNN knows the GOPe hates Cruz.

Reminds me of the story from a few days ago where the New York Times was instructing the Department of Justice to only charge Mrs. Clinton with misdemeanors instead of felonies.

[Yosemitest]

"The argument for Cruz’s eligibility hinges on the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The problem is, this act was repealed.
And, no other subsequent laws by Congress ever used the words “natural born citizen.”
They didn’t because they don’t, because of the Constitution, redefine the term as used by the Framers, “natural born citizen.”
Anyone who know what the Framers intended, will not confuse the term “natural born citizen” with “citizen.”"

How STUPID CAN YOU GET with THAT CIRCLE 'STRAW MAN" Argument ?
The ORIGINAL DEFINITION has ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED !

You can READ THE FOUNDING FATHERS OWN DEFINITION OF "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN:" .

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

[Yosemitest]

And I DISMISS YOU,,/b>

because YOU DISMISS the FOUNDING FATHERS' OWN DEFINITION of the term Natural Born Citizen",
along with the CONSTITUTION !

[x]

Congress cannot change, alter or even interpret that meaning of the Constitution.

Really? Congress decided for a long time that foreign women who married American men would automatically become US citizens without having to be naturalized. If they hadn't done that, "birthers" would have contested whether Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover could actually become president. By changing the rules on citizenship, Congress arguably moved some cases from one category to another, thus having an effect on what the Constitution meant.

[SeekAndFind]

SIGH, if I had a buck for every single thread regarding this issue, I’d be a rich man.

All these talk is PEDANTIC at this point in time.

What I’d like to know is — given the REAL AND HONEST DISAGREEMENTS among many people on both sides of the aisle on this issue — WHO TODAY can determine for us whether or not someone with the birth background of Ted Cruz qualifies for the Presidency?

Let’s decide this and get it over with once and for all.

[DannyTN]

Cruz won’t have to cross that bridge because he won’t win the nomination.

However it is not fair to voters or other candidates to have a field of candidates including some who are not eligible.

We need to stop people like Roger Calero, who ran for President in 2004 and 2008 from ever being on the ballot. Roger was a socialist who was in the country on a green card. He wasn’t even a citizen.

We need processes in place to check eligibility at the state and at the federal level. But we need definitions of who is eligible before we can put processes in place.

[Waryone]

Putin will run for president. All the commies in Congress will vote to let him in and “We the people” will have nothing we can say about it. Just what the CFR is waiting for.

[ConservativeDude]

no possible under common law, and that is where Blackstone is an authority.

but methinks possible under applicable statutory law which does create dual citizens of many countries....Certainly Blackstone is generally correct, but if statutory laws intervene, then that can be an exception to the general principles of common law....to be continued.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

If you think that foreign women who marry American men automatically become U.S citizens without having to be naturalized, you’re even further behind the eight-ball here than I might’ve thought. I married a foreign woman who NATURALIZED as an American citizen several years later.

Congress was explicitly granted the power in the Constitution to determine the rules for immigration and naturalization. No such power was granted to determine natural born citizenship.

[Yosemitest]

It's ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.
It was Settled in 1790 and AGAIN in 1802!

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, font size="+2">but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

So READ THE LATEST FROM the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

READ IT AGAIN .

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

... Citizenship is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 2,
Article 1, Section 3,
Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1,
and in the 14th Amendment
and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation in
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment;
the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4,
also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


• Anyone born inside the United States *
  * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  
• A final, historical condition:
  a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as
Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402),
Alaska (8 USC 1404),
Hawaii (8 USC 1405),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406),
and Guam (8 USC 1407).
Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

(Continued

[TornadoAlley3]

No one ever brought it up before 2014. I blame us all. We loved him as tea party candidate and did not do our homework on him. I cannot find anything posted here about him being born in Canada before primary.

I think states have a process.

[ConservativeDude]

Well, in cases where the sole power is lodged in Congress, you are right, no checks/balances exist. Seems like Amar is saying judging the qualifications of President is like impeachment. It’s their sole power. Courts don’t get to take a shot at it. At least conceptually, that makes sense and is familiar terrain for us in constitutional government. The question is, is that what the text of the constitution provides? Does it clearly make Congress the sole judge of this?

And if it is clear that this is Congress’ sole power, then, he would be right. Other bodies making that disqualification would be unconstitutional.

thank you for your reply. your diligence / knowledge on this important issue is noted and appreciated.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years

Well, that looks like Ted Cruz to me.

[ConservativeDude]

WHO TODAY can determine for us whether or not someone with the birth background of Ted Cruz qualifies for the Presidency?”

I think how that has been handled in the past, and this is a good idea, is that Congress and in particular the Senate would speak up ahead of time and say this person is ok.

But McConnell won’t allow that for Cruz. Pure vindictiveness.

And my fear is that in the miraculous scenario that Cruz were to win, McConnell would judge him unqualified.

(Of course a revolution might follow that...so, perhaps, that wouldn’t happen....)

[x]

If you think that foreign women who marry American men automatically become U.S citizens without having to be naturalized, you're even further behind the eight-ball here than I might've thought. I married a foreign woman who NATURALIZED as an American citizen several years later.

I said "for a long time" That was the law from 1855 to 1922. Wilson's mother became a US citizen when she married his father without having to officially renounce her loyalty to Britain. Ditto with Hoover's Canadian-born mother.

Congress was explicitly granted the power in the Constitution to determine the rules for immigration and naturalization. No such power was granted to determine natural born citizenship.

But changes in the law of naturalization meant changes in the natural born citizenship status of individuals (if you accept the idea that "natural born citizens" are different from other citizens from birth).

[Yosemitest]

You got it.

[Cboldt]

Booting a president for "high crimes and misdemeanors" is different from ascertaining the qualifications. Plus, in trial on impeachment, Congress is limited in remedy to removal from office and a ban on (federal) office. If there be a crime, for real, that gets tried in a court of law.

If Amar is right, Congress could seat Vladimir Putin (in suitable disguise of course, so as to fool the people), and there is no remedy, no check.

The constitution doesn't say Congress shall be the sole judge of qualifications, that's for sure. It dictates the outcome on a finding of disqualified, that's all.