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.
You just said there was an exception, now you say there isn’t.
> Since 1790 the children of American citizens who may be born beyond the Sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States have always been considered as natural birn citizens.
That is contrary to law.
Ha! That never stopped you before! Willful Ignorance is your strong suit.
Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution the pardon power of presidents is absolute and thus no grounds for impeachment. The only exception is a president can’t pardon a president who has already been removed from office via an impeachment trial.
You’re entitled to your opinion. But that’s all it is, an opinion.
It was about whether or not the War on Drugs prohibited the usage of marijuana that had never traveled across state lines, nor even been in commerce — roughly the equivalent of asking if the commerce clause allowed the prohibition of some substance even if it was never involved in commerce. The court said that it could, thereby stating that the commerce clause covered not-commerce.
So why have a Supreme Court?
Since this has never actually happened, I'll just resort to claiming that my Ouija Board is superior to yours (not made in China.)
I just posted the first LAW on the subject, signed by George Washington.
It stated that the Act established the United States citizenship of children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.
The law is not contrary to law.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Founders in 1795:
The Naturalization Act of 1795, Section 4
And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
Since the natural born clause was NOT replaced, the evidence would suggest not only that the Founders didn't intend for it to have permanent operation, but that the sole purpose of the 1790 Act was to coincide with the grandfather clause. (Which entitled the Founding generation to the immunities and privileges of natural born citizenship should they choose to become citizens.
---
(Courtesy PING, Ray)
Hey, if you can convince any judge in the land, any member of Congress or any state’s governor of your position, more power to you.
Congressman Bingham did not convert his opinion into a bill for an act that passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into law by a president.
You cite a naturalization statute and claim the persons described therein are not naturalized.
It is “an act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization”, which is the sub heading of the act referred to as “The Naturalization Act of 1790”.
The persons described therein are naturalized. Congress conferred the status “citizen” on some and “natural born citizen” on others.
This Act was repealed in 1795 and there has never been any other Act conferring the status “natural born citizen” on any persons. If fact the same set of persons upon which the 1790 Act conferred the status “natural born citizen”, had the status “citizen” conferred upon them by the 1795 Act. The 1952 Act also confers the status “citizen” on this set of persons.
Why do YOU think that there is a discussion of who shall be natural born citizens in the Naturalization Act of 1790?
Cruz (and Jindal AND Rubio) birthers should get the zot, period. Playtime is over.
While I believe that most of them are just cloudcuckooland idiots and have no malicious intent, they aid the enemy with their ignorance and the time for tolerating that is over.
What is relevant about the exact wording of the Naturalization Act of 1790 is that the most conservative of judges and legal scholars, who are textualists and originalists are going to look to that actual wording and the context of the Founding generation for guidance as to intent.
To paraphrase: In the beginning, the Founders wanted the children of citizens born overseas to be natural born citizens and not naturalized citizens.
In the 1790 Naturalization Act Congress conferred the status “citizen” on some and “natural born citizen” on others. My opinion of “why” this was done is immaterial: it does not change the irrefutable fact that Congress did it. In 1795 and thereafter the Naturalization Acts of Congress conferred the status “citizen” on some persons and never conferred the status “natural born citizen” on any persons.
You're deflecting. We were talking about original intent, not what any mouthpiece for the administrative organ says.
---
Congressman Bingham did not convert his opinion into a bill for an act that passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into law by a president.
Why would he? Natural law is beyond the legal scope and power of the authority of the man-made laws of government. That's why the Founding generation was entitled act like natural-born citizens with 'all the liberties, privileges and immunities thereof' via a Naturalization Act, but never claimed to actually BE natural born citizens.
Cruz acquired citizenship by Pub.L. 82–414 § 301(a)(7); 66 Stat. 236.
This law states “citizen”
This is not opinion, it is fact.
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.