The experts are coming out of the woodwork now, as opposed to crickets in 2008. Disgusting.
Bull. The first Congress was very clear that someone who was a citizen by means of birth was a natural-born citizen. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1790. That should put to rest any question of what “Natural-born” meant to our founding fathers.
Poor George Washington. His mother wasn’t a US citizen when he was born.
Interestingly, I saw a post by Publius Hulday from a while back that covered this issue. It’s referred to as “coverture,” and yes, it was in operation in the 1790s, though not the 1970s when Cruz was born.
Fordham Law Prof: Ted Cruz Not ‘Natural Born’ Under ‘Originalist’ View of Constitution
____________________________________________________
I disagree. Ted is a NBC. But the prof is right; The definition now of what a Natural Born Citizen is vastly different (possibly opposite of) what the Framers intended.
Opening a can of worms.
Liberal courts that would not give 2 seconds to the Obama birth certificate will suddenly find Cruz’ situation REEEEEAL interesting.
If he wins we could be looking at overtime for the Obama Administration.
This is all very settled law, and so much BS!
The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.â€Â
1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen†has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen†means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law
3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888).
and enactments of the First Congress.
4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).
Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen†includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born†to encompass such children.
5. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (1898).
These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.â€Â
6. 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.
The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,†since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries,
7. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63.
a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.
No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.†The Naturalization Act of 1790
8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795).
provided that “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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .â€Â
9. Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted).
The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen†that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.
10. See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).
The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen†has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.
11. See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.â€Â
The original meaning of “natural born Citizen†also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:
[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
12. Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), in 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).
As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.â€Â
13. 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833).
The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.
14. See Michael Nelson, Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17 Presidential Stud. Q. 383, 396 (1987).
While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.
15. See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.
Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen†within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen†even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.
16. See Michael Dobbs, John McCain’s Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM),
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html [http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].
Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth.
17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).
Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’â€Â
18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964,
19. See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm [http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL].
and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.
20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html.
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.†Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve.
But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen†in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent  whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone  is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose to elect him or her.
This is all just chattering. The proper “originalist” view would have to take in the original purpose of the language inserted into the Constitution. The intent, of course, was to prevent a foreigner becoming the Commander in Chief. They were not worried about those who were alive during the Revolution, they knew all of the Patriots and they were not going to elect any loyalist. Their concern was for the third and beyond generation and they worried that someone who was secretly loyal to some foreign King might become President. The history of Scotland with the Pretender was clearly in their minds.
Unfortunately the language that they chose was suited for the circumstances of their day, but did not contemplate the realities of today. The language has been proven completely incapable of someone who hates America and who pledges loyalty to an ideology rather than to a King. We elected such a person twice, and the Constitution provided nothing that could prevent it. Only the voters could have prevented it and they failed us.
He's right. Nor would Cruz be considered natural born according to over 100 years of recorded law.
North Noonday Mining Co vs Orient Mining Co found in The Federal Reporter, page 527, Copyright 1880.
( https://books.google.com/books?id=BqoKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=%22A+person+born+in+a+foreign+country+out+of+the+Jurisdiction+of+the+United+States+whose+father+is+not+a+citizen+of+the+United+States+can+only+become+a+citizen+by+naturalization%22&source=bl&ots=mbJLGg0xYe&sig=dS2N1-6vy1rwQ5xiI8lY9B_Bs3Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi65PXvuKDKAhUJKyYKHd0FADYQ6AEIMjAH#v=onepage&q=%22A%20person%20born%20in%20a%20foreign%20country%20out%20of%20the%20Jurisdiction%20of%20the%20United%20States%20whose%20father%20is%20not%20a%20citizen%20of%20the%20United%20States%20can%20only%20become%20a%20citizen%20by%20naturalization%22&f=false )
All persons born or naturalized In the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. A person born in a foreign country out of the Jurisdiction of the United States whose father is not a citizen of the United States can only become a citizen by naturalization.
----
Wong Kim Ark, 1898
( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html )
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,..
----
Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad, By United States Dept. of State, Page 141, 1906
( https://books.google.com/books?id=5K5IAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=%22A+person+born+in+a+foreign+country+out+of+the+Jurisdiction+of+the+United+States+whose+father+is+not+a+citizen+of+the+United+States+can+only+become+a+citizen+by+naturalization%22&source=bl&ots=kn3s5Dcu1y&sig=RXJoQRD1JWfxRAlLr_IyhAW_nDk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi65PXvuKDKAhUJKyYKHd0FADYQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=%22A%20person%20born%20in%20a%20foreign%20country%20out%20of%20the%20Jurisdiction%20of%20the%20United%20States%20whose%20father%20is%20not%20a%20citizen%20of%20the%20United%20States%20can%20only%20become%20a%20citizen%20by%20naturalization%22&f=false )
A person born in a foreign country, out of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose father is not a citizen of the United States, can only become a citizen by naturalization. The foreign born son becomes a citizen by being himself naturalized, or by the naturalization of the father during the minority of the son.
******
The 1790 Naturalization Act's natural born language was changed for a reason - to denote the at the time of it's adoption time-frame the Founders put in the Constitution.
After the 1795 Naturalization Act was passed, the REPEAL of the previous act and the language changing to a citizen of the United States meant they were naturalized citizens, because NATURALIZATION is the only authority that Congress can possess outside that adoptive time frame.
Cruz was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and his citizenship is derived from his mother's - but it is not equal to it. He is a naturalized citizen at birth.
With few exceptions, natural born citizens must be born in their native country.
Yet he can’t show where a Founding Father said this. This professor is a liberal.
Here are my thoughts on the matter of Cruz’s eligibility and those who are questioning it.
Full disclosure- I support Trump and Cruz. I am perfectly happy and willing to vote for either one of them or both.
Ted’s eligibility- As far as I am concerned. He’s good to go. He’s mother was a citizen at the time of his birth, so that, to me, means he was born an American citizen and is qualified.
However, that is just my opinion on the matter. My opinion is not law, and there are indeed people who do not agree with my opinion.
So, here’s my concern.
If Ted Cruz does not handle this or address the matter in such a way that squashes it, it could linger, and it could hurt him with people who are concerned about this.
I’m satisfied with his displaying of his mother’s birth certificate, but did that satisfy everyone? Obviously not.
Are the demonrats going to sue him over this? Yes, indeed they will, I have no doubt. I dunno if they will win, but they will certainly try.
Now as far as people like Mark Levin calling people who are concerned over this kooks and attacking form the left and stupid or whatever else he has been saying or is going to say.
Mistake. If someone is concerned about this, and you want their vote for Ted Cruz, you might have to address this issue in a satisfactory manner to them, otherwise might have to do without their vote. Trying to convince them that they are wrong by calling them names is not likely going to succeed in convincing them.
So, to wrap it up, I think leaving it out there to percolate in the nether could hurt him. Maybe it doesn’t, maybe it helps him, it’s hard for me to say. But I think it’s safe to say that leaving it unaddressed by a judge allows the issue to remain a factor one way or the other.
I don’t think the Happy Days jumping the shark response was a good one. Hit it out of the park, ted, or it’s going to stick around.
Just my two cents.
After receiving his JD in 2000, he clerked for Judge Michael Boudin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and for Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yes but how can THIS be? Judge “Eddie Munster” Napolitano says Cruz is eligible without question.
Perhaps Ted Cruz is smart enough to turn this negative attention into a political advantage. Think of all the free print space and air time he is getting.
Fordham shouldn’t even be an accredited law school. Its rankings are artificially inflated by the number of applicants who use it as a fallback school because they’re too afraid to leave the Northeast after denied admission to top tier schools.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal...
Sure. And in the early 20th Century, a woman would lose her US citizenship by marrying an alien. Maybe this genius hasn’t heard that laws change, and that the US Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” which is the great irony here. Liberals have tried to toss the Constitution for their own agenda, using the “living, breathing document” ruse, yet given a circumstance in which the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act defines one who is a US citizen at birth, they haul out the “originalist” BS.
Is this NBC question fair game? Well Donald Trump was grilled over his citizenship in 2011 when he went on “the shows” to try to generate interest in looking at Obama’s legitimacy.
In this article from WND “NOW LOOK WHO’S GETTING GRILLED OVER ELIGIBILITY ‘Natural born’ citizenship questions go beyond Obama to GOP potential”
http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/281157/
Trump put himself out there in 2011. It certainly did not enrich him. He did accomplish getting Obama to release his long form birth certificate. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-history-raising-birther-questions-president-obama/story?id=33861832
How will America protect itself from a Manchurian Presidential candidate? I’m watching European countries with great interest. Germany has been sold out.
It’s actually much simpler than most make it out to be.
If the individual was made a citizen by nature, ie was born in this country to two citizen parents, they are a natural born citizen.
If they were made a citizen by virtue of our immigration and naturalization laws passed by Congress, they have been naturalized, ie “made as if they were natural born citizens,” by statute.
It’s quite apparent that Cruz’s citizenship status at his birth was totally reliant on the existing provisions of our immigration and naturalization laws, the ones put on the books in 1952.
Hence, he is not a natural born citizen, he is a citizen by statute, and therefore not eligible to the office of president.