Posted on 03/23/2015 8:36:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Now that Ted Cruz is officially in the Presidential race, you may rest assured that some of the same people who considered it an insult of titanic proportions to even ask to see President Obama’s birth certificate will be kicking off a similar conversation regarding the Texas Senator. Because, you know… he’s a gosh darn foreigner. For the few of you who may have missed it, Cruz was born in Canada. His father was from Cuba but his mother was a US citizen. As our colleague Guy Benson explained over a year ago, this one isn’t even a question.
For the uninitiated, the Texas Senator and conservative stalwart was born in Calgary, Canada — prompting some to insist that he’s not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible for the presidency. But there are only two types of citizens under the law: Natural born Americans (from birth), and naturalized Americans, who undergo the legal process of becoming a US citizen. Cruz never experienced the latter proceedings because he didn’t need to; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, rendering Cruz an American citizen from the moment of his birth abroad. Meanwhile, Cruz hasn’t even indicated if he has any designs to pursue a White House run — he’s got his hands full in the United States Senate. National Review has more on this preposterous “debate:”
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.
This was the same conversation that took place in 2007 and 2008 regarding John McCain. (McCain was born in Panama.) At the time, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama signed on to a simple resolution (along with the rest of the Senate) declaring that Senator McCain was “a natural born citizen” and eligible for the presidency. Given the current, rather toxic climate inside the beltway, I have to wonder if Ted Cruz will be offered the same consideration?
Perhaps a better question, though we’ve kicked this one around here before, is whether or not the Supreme Court will ever rule on this definition once and for all so we can just be done with it. True, we have some federal laws on the books which cover such things and they are frequently referenced when these discussions come up. And there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that this interpretation is any way unconstitutional.
And why would it be? The prevailing wisdom seems to at least have the benefit of sounding reasonable to the layman. Going back to the writing of the Constitution it was recognized that there are only two types of citizens recognized. You are either a citizen at the time of your birth or you become one later by going through the naturalization process. If we have to pick one of these two classes to be “natural born” it seems a rather easy choice.
But, yet again, that answer won’t be “permanent” (for lack of a better word) without the Supremes weighing in on it. And for that to happen, someone would have to challenge it. And that someone would have to have standing to even bring the challenge. You know… the more I think about it, maybe we should just stick with what we have now.
A natural born citizen IS, necessarily a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of the United States is NOT necessarily a natural born citizen.
The definition entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866 during the discussion concerning the 14th Amendment:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”
John A. Bingham
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
What's 'flowed' from government since then isn't law, it's a lie.
But who went to the same Liberal law schools as the Liberal justices, and were likely taught incorrectly regarding a topic that is mostly ignored or taught according to the "Wong Kim Ark" precedent. In other words, taught misapplied precedent.
Your cognitive dissonance is simply incredible. You repeat the salient word yourself and still it makes no impression on your consciousness.
Un-freakin-real.
He's seen it, had his face rubbed in it, been beaten upside the head with it, and had it stuffed in his pipe and he had to smoke it, but he still wants to argue that they are only correct about the part he agrees with, but they are wrong about the part which he disagrees with.
In his opinion the Wong Kim Ark Supreme court exists in a state of quantum superposition, being both wrong and right at the same time.
LOL! If that didn't get their attention, you'd you'd think someone so steeped in law might realize the Founders passed another Naturalization Act just 5 years later, specifically repealing the natural born citizen clause.
Gee..it's almost like it was only briefly there in order to coincide with the grandfather clause or something!
Yes, "Orbiter dictum" is a fancy way of saying that when you disagree with their opinion, you regard them as wrong.
There's that quantum superposition both right and wrong at the same time cognitive dissonance that you've got.
You must not have had many conversations with him. He's rooting against logic, common sense and fairness, but he is in favor of "legality", especially when it is contrary to logic, common sense and fairness. :)
Citizenship by descent is dependent upon statute, in this case Pub.L. 82–414 § 301(a)(7); 66 Stat. 236.
Upon meeting the terms & conditions specified by Congress as stated in that statute the status of “citizen” is conferred.
The statute poses no problems or ambiguities, there is no reason to believe Congress intended a different result.
Neither the University of Texas Law School nor the University of Georgia Law School has a reputation as a liberal law school.
Royce C. Lamberth, Chief U.S. District Court Judge was the first federal judge to rule that Barack Obama was a natural born citizen.
“Lamberth was born in 1943 in San Antonio, Texas. He graduated from the University of Texas, where he was a member of the Tejas Club, and from the University of Texas School of Law, receiving an LL.B. in 1967. He served as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the United States Army from 1968 to 1974, including one year in Vietnam. After that, he became an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1978, Lamberth became Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, a position he held until his appointment to the federal bench.
He was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 19, 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the United States Senate on November 13, 1987. He served as Chief Judge of the court from 2008 to July 15, 2013, and assumed senior status the same day.”
U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land declared the natural born citizenship issue as applied to Barack Obama to be “frivolous” and he sanctioned attorney Orly Taitz to the tune of $20,000 for wasting his time with nonsense. The sanction was upheld by SCOTUS.
“Clay Daniel Land (born 1960) is a United States federal judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. He has served as Chief Judge since October 1, 2014.
Born in Shreveport, Louisiana, Land received a B.B.A. from the University of Georgia in 1982 and a J.D. from the University of Georgia Law School in 1985. He was in private practice in Columbus, Georgia from 1985 to 2001.
On September 21, 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Land to a seat on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia vacated by J. Robert Elliot. Land was confirmed by the United States Senate on December 13, 2001, and received his commission on December 21, 2001.”
Mr. Cruz was born in a foreign country to a foreign father and US citizen mother. What rule must apply in order to make Mr. Cruz eligible? By this rule a person could be born in Yemen to an Iraqi ISIS father and a US citizen mother, and be eligible for the Presidency. This of course is wholly unreasonable, yet it is within the rule required for Cruz to be eligible.
This illustrates the folly of rule by politics and the necessity of rule of law. In the United States eligibility for the Presidency is established by rule of law, not by politics.
Such a ridiculous rule of law is not the rule of law specified in the US Constitution.
While Cruz may be popular he obviously is not eligible, a ridiculous rule would be required.
But as has been pointed out to you a dozen times before, "natural born citizens" existed prior to the 14th amendment, and therefore cannot possibly be defined by it.
The 14th merely defines citizens by statutory law, not natural citizens, and it's specific target was former slaves who could not claim parental citizenship.
But see here, the existence of the 14th does in fact completely disprove your claim. If "jus soli" was the actual rule of law regarding citizenship, then why did they need to create and pass the 14th amendment?
Why did we need the 14th amendment if being born in the jurisdiction was already the law? Seems to me that you don't make laws that say the same thing as the law already says. You make laws to CHANGE existing law.
In 1874 the Supreme Court said that; “The Constitution does not say in words who shall be ‘Natural Born Citizens.’ Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”— Minor v Happersett
I'm glad you mentioned that exact quote. That entire case hinged on the 14th amendment. Virginia Minor used the passage of the 14th amendment to advance her claim. (That she should have a right to vote.) The court was speaking specifically about the 14th amendment when it said "The Constitution does not say in words who shall be ‘Natural Born Citizens.’ Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that."
They are saying that the 14th amendment DOES NOT SAY WHO SHALL BE "NATURAL BORN CITIZENS." Well it certainly says who shall be "citizens", ergo "natural born citizens" are not defined by the 14th amendment, and the Supreme court is specifically noting this.
Now watch you come out with your "orbiter dicta" bullsh*t when you realize this torpedoes your argument. :)
Uh, Nero Germanicus, I believe that's your cue.
I do not know if this is true or not. There is a powerful legal case to be made against him if Liberals are so inclined. I also don't trust them not to make the attempt.
It's a well-established principle that Cruz, having been born an American citizen to an American mother in Canada, is therefore Natural Born, and that's why I don't think there is a single court that will ever rule otherwise.
What do you mean "Well Established"? If it were "Well Established" how did Aldo Mario Bellei lose his citizenship in 1971?
I didn't know "natural born citizens" had a residency requirement. I thought I could leave the country and never come back, yet still remain an American citizen.
Now Nero Germanicus is going to come along and tell you it's all good because CONGRESS CHANGED THE LAW. You see, he suffers from cognitive dissonance, and is completely immuned to the irrationality of "natural born citizen" being changed at the whim of Congress.
Also, don't count Wong Kim Ark out of the equation. They specifically said that anyone born outside the jurisdiction of the United States can only be a "naturalized" citizen.
Like I said, it's not necessarily so clear cut and well established. Certainly you have dueling precedents.
Here’s the section of federal law that applies to Senator Cruz:
8 USC 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...”
"But we have always done things that way!"
When the scribblings of bureaucrats is of greater importance than the principles articulated by the founders, we are done.
Oh! We're here, aren't we?
Yeah, they aren't getting that "naturalization" part at the top of these acts they keep citing. I'm getting to the point where I don't even know how to talk to these people anymore.
How do you get through to people with these inconsistent ideas fixed in their head?
“Here’s the section of federal law that applies to Senator Cruz: 8 USC 1401”
Any application of law to confer citizenship is by definition citizenship by manmade and unnatural citizenship, whereas the Founders unambiguously stated the citizenship had to be natural born, meaning by the law of Nature and not by the Law of Man. Reliance upon USC 1401 establishes unnatural born citizenship at birth, and not natural born citizenship at birth.
“Yeah, they aren’t getting that “naturalization” part at the top of these acts they keep citing. I’m getting to the point where I don’t even know how to talk to these people anymore.”
Sometimes you cannot and do not.
They are also totally disregarding the core purpose of the natural born citizen clause, which is the recognition of how birth in 1787 determined a person’s natural born allegiance to a sovereign, and it was a person’s allegiance under international law about which the Founders were concerned.
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.