In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court - an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption - Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a “natural born citizen.”
He added: “Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.
“On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors - a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time - Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.”
Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”
In American law and in the common law, citizenship is determined by soil before blood and that's the dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about.
The statute of 5 Edw. III recites the existence of doubts as to the right of foreign-born children to inherit in England; and, while it is declaratory of the rights of children of the King, and is retrospective as to the persons specifically named, yet, as to all others, it is, in terms, merely prospective, applying to those only "who shall be born henceforth." Mr. Binney, in his paper above cited, after a critical examination of the statute and of the early English cases, concluded:
There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.
Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203. And the great weight of the English authorities, before and since he wrote, appears to support his conclusion. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 17a, 18a; Co.Lit. 8a, and Hargrave's note 36; 1 Bl.Com. 33; Barrington on Statutes, (5th ed.) 268; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; I: ord Chancellor Cranworth, in Shedden v. Patrick, 1 Macq. 535, 611; Cockburn on Nationality, 7, 9; De Greer v. Stone, 2 Ch.D. 243, 252; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 17, 741. "The acquisition," says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) "of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments."
Please be aware that Laurence Tribe is a big Lefty.
Tribe was one of Cruz’ law school professors?
Secondly, I fail to see where Trump or any of the others are wrong. I think even Tribe is saying here, that the matter is not resolved. If you’re an originalist, as Cruz is, then he is NOT eligible, if you are a living constitutionalist... he probably is eligible.
BOTTOM LINE, contrary to what Judge Napolitano says, it is NOT settled.
“It says if you want to be an American president, you have to be born on United States territory just like every other man who’s ever held the office was born in the contiguous United States and Hawaii.”—Rick Sanchez
__________________________________
Though the Declaration of Independence was dated July 4, 1776, it took 13 years to win and confirm this independence on the battle fields. A recognizable new nation called the United States of America, with its own constitution and government was established only in 1783 through the treatry of Paris signed by King George the Third and the representatives of the United States of America.
Prior to this date, anyone born in North America, presently known as USA, was actually born in a British Colony, controlled by England and was a citizen of England and pledged allegiance to the British Crown. Thus nine of the forty-three Presidents, who had served as president, were foreign born. These nine foreign born US presidents are listed hereunder:
1. George Washington (1789-1797) was born in 1732, in the British Colony of Virginia, and was a British subject, until the formation of the Government of the United States of America in 1789, when he became its first president.
2. John Adams (1797-1801) was born in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1735.
3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) was born in 1743 in the colony of Virginia.
4. James Madison (1809-1817) was born in 1751 in the colony of Virginia.
5. James Monroe (1817-1825) was born in the colony of Virginia, in 1758.
6. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) was born in 1767 in the colony of Massachusetts.
7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) was born in 1767 in the colony of the Carolinas.
8. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841) was born in 1782 in the colony of New York.
9. William Henry Harrison (1841) was born in 1773 in the colony of of Virginia. He died in office from pneumonia.
The tenth US president, John Tyler (1841-1845) was the First US born president. He was born in March 29, 1790, in the State of Virginia in USA.
http://www.usanewsandinformationservice.com/uspresidentsfb.html