Last week Donald Trump demonstrated that he is really worried about Ted Cruz and his rise in the polls, because he has subtly been trying to push the idea that Cruz is ineligible to be President. This is not the first time the issue has come up, about both Cruz and Marco Rubio, but this issue is a red herring meant by Trump to discredit Cruz while trying to make it look like he is not attacking his closest rival for the nomination.
There are three required qualifications to run for President of the United States:
1. Be 35 years old;
2. Be a resident of the U.S. for 14 years;
3. Be a Natural Born Citizen, or a citizen of the U.S. at the time of ratification of the Constitution
The consternation over the eligibility of Cruz and Rubio come from what it means to be a Natural Born Citizen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen (his mother). Neither of Marco Rubio’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, but he was born in the United States in Miami, FL.
In simplest terms, a Natural Born Citizen of the United States is somebody who is a citizen of the United States at the time of their birth. In other words, the individual does not have to apply for citizenship in order to become a U.S. citizen. They simply are one from the moment of their birth. (Interestingly, the process for an immigrant to become a U.S. citizen is called “Naturalization”.)
There are two ways to become a natural born citizen. The first is to be born in the United States. In this scenario, it doesn’t matter whether or not the person’s parents are U.S. citizens. The very presence on American soil at the time of birth confers upon the child the right of U.S. citizenship. This is the scenario for Marco Rubio (and Bobby Jindal as well, but he has already dropped out of the race).
The second way to become a natural born citizen is to be born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. Either your mother or your father can be a citizen. It doesn’t matter which one, and it doesn’t matter where you are born. The parental lineage of citizenship confers to their children. This is a concept which comes from English Common Law, which was a foundation for both the Constitution and early American law. This second scenario not only covers Ted Cruz, but also former Presidential candidate John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
For an excellent article on the subject, you can read this piece from Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, two Solicitors General from two different Presidents (Katyal works for Obama, and Clement worked for George W. Bush), in the Harvard Law Review.
Some people have raised the question about the differences between citizenship requirements for serving in Congress (or other State level offices) and for serving as President. The difference is this: if you were not a U.S. citizen at birth but applied for, and were granted, U.S. citizenship at some point in your life, you are eligible to serve in Congress or in State offices. This is how Arnold Schwarzenegger was able to serve as Governor of California.
I’m sure there will still be conspiracy theories out there, and I am sure Democrats will try to make noise about this, especially after all of the issues raised about Obama’s birth certificate. But the simple fact of the matter is that both Cruz and Rubio are Natural Born Citizens.
84 comments
No Virginia this is Absolutely incorrect and misleading ! The Law of Nations Defines Natural born as being born to parents who are also citizens otherwise they have to be naturalized or remain subjects of their fathers country of citizenship and not eligible for the office of President. https://nobarack08.wordpress.com/natural-born-citizen-defined/ https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/george-washington-john-jay-and-vattels-definition-of-natural-born-citizen/
1) it was the Colon Hospital in Colón, Panama.
2) I believe Ted’s dad and mom had applied for and received Canadian Citizenship at the time (she may not have met the residency requirements before Ted’s birth, so she was at that time not yet a Canadian citizen,)so Ted’s Dad was no longer a Cuban, but a Cuban-Canadian. (He renounced Canadian citizenship in 2005)
3) There may be degrees of difference between McCain (born of US Citizen Mother and US Citizen Father on foreign soil,) Cruz (born of US Citizen Mother on foreign soil,) and Rubio (born of non-US Citizen Father and non-US Citizen Mother on US Soil ) but none are a natural born citizen.
Perhaps there was a contest or ranking for CLOSEST to natural born citizen, if so, I would put them:
A) McCain – 66% NBC (2 parents, other country)
B) Rubio — 33% (0 parents, this country)
C) Cruz — 33% (1 parent, other country)
Not sure how I’d break the tie, which is more important? Jus Sanguinis or Jus Soli?
Why is it always the Republican’s?
Because we care about the Constitution and that some of us have sworn to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic.
So your line of reasoning is that the Naturalization Act determines who is a natural born citizen? That such issues are a political question subject to the whims of Congress?
Since the framers of the Constitution did not define natural born citizen but left that to the First Congress (which defined that term vis a vis foreign born children of US citizens in 1790)… yes.
Then if Congress can define the term natural born children, why can they not define other items as well? Such as the second amendment, isn’t that just a political question?
And couldn’t royals become president if all they need is one american citizen to qualify?
The answer to that is probably no. In divining the intent of the the framers of the Constitution, the court would probably look at what the first congress, which included a large number of those framers, wrote on the subject. It is pretty clear from the first Naturalization Act that the framers did not think birth on US soil was necessary to be natural born.
The framers also said a lot of things about militias. Seen any militias marching around lately? (Other than idiots in Oregon that is) Congress got rid of militias. So the second amendment is just as much a political question as what constitutes a citizen.
And what about those royals?
A militia is made up of private citizens. It was defined that way in the time of the framers, and it is defined that way today. A militia is not a standing army. It is not the national guard. I know anti-second amendment folks like to try and throw the whole, “well regulated militia” argument around, but it doesn’t hold water.
Seen any militias lately? Where are they? Oh and what about a Canadian who wasn’t born to US parents but was able to get citizenship through his grandparents? Would he be able to be president?
Militias exist, they are volunteer organizations similar to the local Neighborhood Watch. Most of them are small for that reason.
Any collection of people capable of protecting their community is a militia and grandparents cannot pass on citizenship… that can only come through a child’s parents or through naturalization.
Actually you are wrong. In the Heller decision, SCOTUS relied heavily on the operational definition of militia around the time the Constitution was ratified (all able-bodied men over the age of a certain age) as well as State constitutions written around the same time, to conclude that interpreting the 2nd amendment to only protect using firearms in an organized militia as incompatible with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
And what about those royals? That wee Prince George is a cutie-petootie.
Aside from it being repealed entirely and with the newer law changing natural born citizen to US Citizen 5 years later. Why is it the folks that bring up that fact always drop the ‘repeal and replace’ that followed?
Because the replacement bill of 1795does not redefine natural born citizen (nor, for that matter did any subsequent naturalization bill) and that replacement bill does not reflect the will of the framers in the same way as the first Congress did (again many of the framers were in that first Congress).
A law that repeals and corrects is a law that repeals and corrects. And we could play count the framers in 1790 and in 1795. Or we could realize that a law determining what a US Citizen is different from the Constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born citizen (hence outside the domain of Congress and not JUST a US Citizen.)
You are wrong.
Ah, I see the depth of your reasoning. Wrong about what? That a law that repeals is a law that repeals? Or that greater weight is put upon a law because of how many framers participated? Or that one law is different from another law. Or that a US Citizen is different from natural born citizen? Or that the Constitution is the highest law of the land??
In case you hadn’t noticed, Congress and the states have already passed laws restricting gun rights. The last time I looked the second amendment said, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet they seem to pass more and more laws restricting guns, and the Supreme Court has validated that.
They could start by outlawing anyone over 45 years old from owning any fire arm. But by then the people will figure out that the entire Constitution has been turned into a political question. But then that’s what Trump is all about, isn’t it?
So we should keep up with the practice by infringing on the qualifications for President?
Congress can only determine what makes a US Citizen, the natural born citizen is different and separate part of the Constitution. We can amend the Constitution, or our fantastic Supreme Court can augur and/or divine special new laws, meanings, rights, and taxes.
If the fine swell Cruz and Rubio supporters continue to go along with dismembering the Constitution to satisfy a short-term political gain, there is no difference between them and the more flexible progressives.
Then the rest of us Conservatives can hope and pray for a better outcome than we deserve for allowing them to prevail.
In the morally ambiguous world of ‘natural born citizen’ meaning what you want it to mean for political expediency, then yes, anybody can be President and everybody gets a trophy.
Corrected by 1795 repeal and replaced with US Citizen instead of NBC.
My Constitution isn’t left for Congress to define.
The Naturalization Act was repealed and replaced but not in that bill or anywhere since has natural born citizen ever been redefined. The fact that children born in foreign lands to American parents are referred to as citizens (as opposed to naturalized citizens as the rest of the act sets the rules for) does not negate the natural born citizens definition in the former act.
If the writers of the 1795 act wanted to repudiate the definition in the Naturalization Act of 1790, they would have actually given another definition of natural born citizen in that bill.
Please reread the 1795 act particularly what was said about the 1790 act. Particularly these sections:
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, ‘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.
I have read, in full, every naturalization act since the Act of 1790. I figured I better read up on the issue since Trump is taking the low road on this. I will reiterate, no act of Congress since 1790 has in any way redefined natural born citizen.
Trump is helping to vet Cruz.
Expressly repealing an act that mentions natural born Citizen and replacing it with something that complies with the Constitution does not need to redefine, because the Act with USC repealed the Act with nbC.
How would something like that be cited or argued?
Because a term was mentioned in an act that was repealed does not really resonate with me as valid.
The people who passed the first naturalization act were in a better position to know what was in their own minds and the minds of their compatriot framers than the congress of 1795 and in a much, much better position than you.
You might not like the answer, but yes. Congress could also pass a statute that says you have to have both parents be U.S. Citizens and be born in the United States in order to be a natural born citizen. Until and unless someone challenges that in court, it would be the law of the land.
In order for the courts to step in, someone with standing would have to challenge the law and take it to the Supreme Court. At that point you might get a ruling, or the Courts may decide it is a political issue left to Congress.
As the law stands now Cruz and Rubio are both natural born citizens.
And as I have been saying, one of the other candidates has to file the lawsuit. I saw some Congress guy is going to file.. He won’t have standing any more than the Obama bunch did. And no, it is not settled as some claim, because the courts have never ruled on it. Don’t you think it’s time to get this straight once and for all?
No, if it does not remain contorted and confused by the very people seeking to benefit from that misinterpretation, then it does not serve the purpose. Natural born citizen has been quite clear for sometime now, only becoming an issue in the late 2000’s. Go figure.
Since you seem to be the expert on what it takes to be a Natural Born Citizen, please enlighten us. What are the requirements to be a natural born citizen? You seem to be quite certain of who is not an NBC and why, so tell us what it takes to be one. Then point us all to the source of these qualifications so we can all be suitably enlightened.
Mick, I can understand your frustration. Your reluctance to answer the questions I’ve raised kinda makes this a one-sided debate. I’m guessing from your reaction that you’ve analyzed the research and you concur on the facts.
This ‘Alinsky’ attempt to reframe the discussion is desperate and beneath you.
I am not a legitimate expert on anything. I am an American and it is my Constitution.
The Constitution explains eligibility for Congress and a different eligibility for President.
You want your guy to win and are willing to misrepresent your Constitution to get him there.
Frankly, that disappoints me, and it disappoints me more that Senator Cruz has been equally ‘flexible.’
It is our job to vet the nominees and propose and promote the best qualified electable nominee.
Qualified includes eligible. Have Cruz or Rubio said that they are a natural born citizen without modifier or qualifier?
I still await your responses to other points, although if it turns out that the ineligible political strategy is to cross our fingers and whistle past the graveyard, you’ll have a hard sell and we won’t make it to the White House.
I like Ted Cruz, in every way except this folly, and I will support him if he lucks his way past the Convention.
In that case however, I fear what getting him into the Presidency will put our country through.
I am not frustrated. I know based on the facts that both Cruz and Rubio are eligible. You disagree, so I asked you to present your argument for what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen and where you get the basis for your definition.
Still waiting…
Mick, frustration was my assumption why you are ducking points and avoiding questions elsewhere in this debate.
You keep assuming facts not in evidence, we are debating the facts and trying to get to a common understanding so that I may support you and your candidate assuming we go through the rabbit hole.
Please tell me how Cruz, the son of a Cuban-Canadian born in Alberta is a Natural Born Citizen for the purpose of Presidential eligibility.
My Constitution says ‘No Person except a natural born Citizen… ‘ so it is upon you to make that case – Go!
It is upon you and yours to prove that he is rather than me and mine to prove he is not.
You may start with the difference between a US Citizen and a natural born Citizen.
“frustration was my assumption why you are ducking points and avoiding questions elsewhere in this debate”
What questions have I ducked? The only question I know of that is being ducked right now is what you believe qualifies someone to be a natural born citizen.
“Please tell me how Cruz, the son of a Cuban-Canadian born in Alberta is a Natural Born Citizen for the purpose of Presidential eligibility.”
Answered in the body of the article.
“You may start with the difference between a US Citizen and a natural born Citizen”
Answered in the body of the article.
All you have done so far is to simply say, “no they’re not.” I have presented the arguments and facts that support my conclusion. Provide your reasoning why you believe they are not (third time I have asked this, btw).
I will also add another question. In a different post, you said you would vote for Cruz if he wins the nomination. How could you possibly bring yourself to vote for someone you are convinced is ineligible to hold the office?
Just because your father-in-law thinks it is ok for him to move into a district and run for office doesn’t make it ok for Cruz to move into the United States and run for office.
Cruz was four when he moved back to the US… a country that he had had citizenship since birth as he is a natural born citizen. Do you really think this comment is in any way true?
In a word, yes.
Well then.
Personal attacks are the last refuge of the weak minded.
Screed 001
Well ok then. I’ll go back and compile the open points/questions and we can reason our way to agreement or a better understanding of why you are wrong.
But first I’ll begin with the issues in your hit piece:
“In simplest terms, a Natural Born Citizen of the United States is somebody who is a citizen of the United States at the time of their birth.”
No, no that is not the simplest, it is YOUR conclusion not yet proven. In simplest terms, a US Citizen is somebody who is a citizen of the United States at the time of their birth.
When someone is born, they are born in a place and they are born of a woman and most probably has been sired by a man.
If they are born in a US place (most often a US State/Commonwealth) they are a US Citizen. (aka Jus Solis)
If one of the breeding pair is a US Citizen, then they are a US Citizen through that parent, if both are US Citizens, it flows through both. The US Citizenship flows through the bloodline (aka Jus Sanguinis)
Congress makes laws stating who, what, where, and when someone is a US Citizen.
In other words, the individual does not have to apply for citizenship in order to become a U.S. citizen. They simply are one from the moment of their birth. (Interestingly, the process for an immigrant to become a U.S. citizen is called “Naturalization”.)”
In other words, you again are claiming your conclusion as equivalent when that is not yet proven.
The US Citizen at birth is one who is a US Citizen via Jus Sanguinis (through blood) or a US Citizen via Jus Solis (through place.)
Applying for citizenship is what non-citizens do to get to try to obtain US Citizenship.
So we have corrected the terms in the first paragraph and I hope have clarified that, a US Citizen in simplest terms, in other words, and simply, is a US Citizen.
From the Constitution we know that a US Citizen is required for the position of Representative or Senator. And we also know that the Constitution requires a natural born Citizen for the position of President.
So, we can deduce that US Citizen (USC) is not the same as a natural born Citizen (nbC). And it’s kinda implied that the requirement for President would be higher than the requirement for House or Senate.
Now what possibly could be higher than a USC via Jus Sanguinis or a USC via Jus Solis?
How about both? Born of a US Citizen AND born in the US.
Makes sense to me.
More to come.
That’s a lovely theory. Unfortunately for you, legal scholars don’t agree with you. I will close this topic with this bit from the article I linked to:
“The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.4×4. 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.”
And since the U.S. Supreme Court is who would ultimately decide a legal challenge in this area, that pretty much seals the deal.
Have a nice night.
Actually, I tend to generalize groups of people, so legal scholars, ancient alien theorists, climate scientist consensus, all are in the same boat for me. Some are right, some are wrong. If you wish to play ‘tyranny of the majority’ and ‘more is better’ when discussing principle, you’re on your own.
If you wish to advocate that ‘natural born Citizen’ means born anywhere as long as Mom and/or Dad is a US Citizen at the time, you must use persuasion and reason rather than false assumptions and appeals to authority.
While you may prefer to play chicken with the party, legal scholars, democrats, the media, and the Constitution, I do not.
It is incumbent upon the Party to put forth the most qualified electable nominee, as much I would prefer it not be so, Cruz will not be the guy.
So, as the law stands now, Cruz and Rubio are both US citizens.
Or perhaps I’m wrong, which law is it that now stands that makes them natural born citizens, because they certainly weren’t beforehand (cuz no law is required for natural born citizen, that’s kinda the point.)
Your law to make them natural born citizens does not exist, and your
desire for them to be natural born citizens is still not satisfied.
Congress can pass any bill or resolution they want. It doesn’t become a
law until the President signs it. But they all did not regarding natural
born citizen. There have been such bills introduced as recently as 2004 but
not passed by the house.
I would like to see Congress provide a resolution in support of Cruz’s citizenship. They did it for McCain, why not for Cruz.
If we don’t see an effort for a resolution it will reflect on what Congress really thinks of Cruz. I wouldn’t be surprised if they just let Cruz twist in the wind over this. The word I hear is Cruz is not well liked amongst the Capitol Hill crew.
There is a very big difference between Cruz and McCain. McCain was born on US soil in the Canal Zone ON A NAVAL BASE. Cruz was born in Canada to one US citizen and a Cuban
So what… his mother was just as able to convey citizenship as his father would have been had he been a US citizen.
Chester A. Arthur only had one citizen parent at the time of his birth and he was President.
According to the Constitution, US Citizen is determined by Congress, natural born citizen is not.
Wrong… the very first congress defined natural born citizen which the Constitution did not. Any attempt to divine what the framers meant by natural born citizen will go right back to what that very first naturalization bill (passed one year after the Constitution was ratified by many of the same people who voted on the Constitution itself) said about it. If the framers of the Constitution had not meant to allow children born in foreign lands to be President, the would not have approved the first Naturalization Act. If the common definition of natural born citizen at the time had not included such children, the rest of that first congress would not have approved it either.
Think of it this way, perhaps the 1795 law was a big ‘Undo’ because they realized that the 1790 act was contrary to the Constitution in that matter. This was an express repeal.
Are you saying that the Framers wanted children born in foreign lands to be President? Where does that history come from?
If it were a big “Undo”, they would have, ya know, actually undone something. They did not redefine natural born citizen.
You did read the 1795 act right?
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “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.
You get that right? You really want to stick with ‘old laws are the best laws?’
Yes I did read it.
Yet the express repeal doesn’t resonate with you?
No… first the replacement in no way tries to redefine natural born citizen and second the actions of the first congress have a much better claim on capturing the intent of the framers.
So had the congress at the time, rather than repeal as they did, said ‘… all the changed 1795 stuff… And ‘natural born citizen is not US Citizen’ is what you would require to accept instead of them section 4 expressly repealing??
I’m not being obnoxious on purpose, I just want to be able to follow your logic. Do you think this holds true for repealed parts of the Constitution as well?
I’m not sure I can accept the expiration date on the framers intent.
Military bases on foreign soil are not considered US soil. That only applies to embassies.
And Colon Hospital is in Colon Panama and not in the Canal Zone nor is it on a Military Base. But I believe children born on Embassy grounds become a US citizen through their parentage in those cases — not natural born citizen though.
1) it was the Colon Hospital in Colón, Panama.
2) I believe Ted’s dad and mom had applied for and received Canadian Citizenship at the time (she may not have met the residency requirements before Ted’s birth, so she was at that time not yet a Canadian citizen,)so Ted’s Dad was no longer a Cuban, but a Cuban-Canadian. (He renounced Canadian citizenship in 2005)
3) There may be degrees of difference between McCain (born of US Citizen Mother and US Citizen Father on foreign soil,) Cruz (born of US Citizen Mother on foreign soil,) and Rubio (born of non-US Citizen Father and non-US Citizen Mother on US Soil ) but none are a natural born citizen.
Perhaps there was a contest or ranking for CLOSEST to natural born citizen, if so, I would put them:
A) McCain – 66% NBC (2 parents, other country)
B) Rubio — 33% (0 parents, this country)
C) Cruz — 33% (1 parent, other country)
Not sure how I’d break the tie, which is more important? Jus Sanguinis or Jus Soli?
Rocinante… your operational definition of natural born citizen is not the the actual operational definition. Barry Goldwater, George Romney, Chester A. Arthur, John McCain, TGF that is President now: all of these people show your definition to be counterfactual. Also showing your definition to be counterfactual is the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was passed a few short months after the Constitution came into effect (and two months before the Constitution was even ratified by North Carolina and Rhode Island). This source that was passed into law completely contemporary with the Constitution is the best source we have about what the framers meant by natural born citizen… it indicates that foreign born children of US citizens are natural born citizens.
My operational definition is the Constitution, common sense now, and common sense then. Your “actual” operational definition is from a Congress-made law that was expressly repealed, replaced-with-correct, no-more, ex-law.
Barry Goldwater- didn’t become President, the natural born Citizen did.
George Romney – didn’t become nominee, withdrew from race, the natural born Citizen did.
Chester A . Arthur — denied and hid his parentage, nominee challenger attacked the place of birth (hauntingly familiar), became VP, inherited Presidency, ordered his personal papers destroyed the day before he died. History now reveals as not a natural born Citizen (so I guess he’s the ideal role model for Senators wishing to be President.)
John McCain — didn’t win, President TGF did.
President TGF — beat a natural born citizen.
These guys don’t show my definition counterfactual, unless your argument is that natural born citizen doesn’t count if you lie , cheat, and steal your way into the White House. Or perhaps your argument is that the ends justifies the means, or both?
In 1790, Congress put in words defining how to become a US Citizen, who can be a US Citizen and they said, in essence, Citizen is only a matter of parentage, not birth.
This issue was a pretty big deal at the time,and they decided to ‘fix’ the law.
In 1795 Congress must have decided that 1790 law was not or no longer good enough so they made a new law and in the new law they rewrote a bunch of stuff, took out their reference to natural born citizen and put in US Citizen. AND, they declared in that new 1790 law that everything in that old law was repealed, on purpose.
I take that to mean undone, gone, erased, deleted, magic-wand-waved-and-poof-disappeared-!
The framers at that time, had reasons, some discernible, some not so. They had resource material, books, history, some of the same materials we do but they used them and adhered to the Constitution.
Not only are you arguing that terms in a law that was expressly repealed and replaced then, you are arguing that those terms should also be used now exclusively.
No it is not Rocinante… nowhere in the Constitution did its framers define natural born citizen. One can presume from the text and requirements to serve in the House and Senate that naturalized citizens are ineligible no matter how long they have lived in the US but that is all you can presume.
The fact remains that the 1790 Naturalization Act is the only place where natural born citizen is defined. If the 1795 Congress had wanted to redefine that definition of natural born citizen (if they even had that power being more removed in time and membership from the Constitutional Convention) then they would have needed to actually redefine it so as to specifically exclude the foreign born children of US citizens. They would have needed to do more than refer to them as citizens in subsequent acts.
Cause McCain is establishment and Cruz is not.
I’m sure Hilary will be equally supportive, just like McCain, if and before she becomes the nominee.
Also because that’s not an acceptable way to amend the constitution.
I thought it was just the senate. Interesting bit of debate and language getting to that resolution.
Trump doesn’t like Cruz nipping at his heels and wants to keep him at bay, so he’s creating doubt. Can’t wait to see what he has in store for Hillary in the general campaign. Hopefully, Cruz will end up being Trump’s VP nominee. Can’t wait.
And/or Trump probably wants Cruz thoroughly vetted on this (if he can be.) before VP or he appoints him to the Supreme Court.
Because I say so or because they say so is not good enough.
And,
‘Simply stated’ is your opinion and assumes the terms in question are resolved terms and the ‘simple fact’ is neither.
And,
Although some of us know that you are a Cruz supporter and can tell from your opinion piece, you really should be more forthcoming about this in articles like this.
It’s not just me who says so. The 1st Congress provided clarification, at least where Cruz is concerned, with the Naturalization Act of 1790:
“And 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”
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
Rubio’s situation has already been adjudicated in other cases. That is not to say that Congress can’t later act to deny citizenship to the children of non-U.S. citizens born on American soil at a later date, but at the time of his birth, Rubio was a citizen of the U.S.
Who I support is not an issue considering I give Rubio (who I definitely do not support) the same consideration as Cruz.
CitizenSSS, not one citizen, two ctizens. Not eligible
“The children (plural) of citizens (plural) of the United States.” Since the plural is used for both children and citizens, it is not being used to identify both parents. It is the same as writing The child of a citizen of the United States. It is semantics.
In order for it to require that both parents be citizens it would have to read, “a child of citizens of the United States.”
Weren’t there others at the time who were not considered US Citizens? Do you think maybe the citizenship of the wife at that time might have been considered superfluous? Should we be considering context when we beat with the semantic stick?
https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/george-washington-john-jay-and-vattels-definition-of-natural-born-citizen/
Chester A. Arthur’s father was Irish and not naturalized until 14 years after his birth.
So sneaking in makes it a precedent and the right thing to do from now on? So if we can get away with evading the law, that makes it acceptable? Or it’s only wrong if you get caught at the time — what is the statute of limitations for this? Or it’s impolitic to inquire too deeply, or ‘It’s OK if it’s my guy?’
No one sneaked in.
Didn’t Chester Arthur deceive others about his parents’ lack of US citizenship for political gain? That is what I meant about ‘sneaking in’ for the nomination and presidency. Perhaps this has come back into fashion in our times.
Good point ! The Traitors have held the Presidency since Washington.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×6142289
No, it’s you who asserted what you are trying to debate.
Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio may be US Citizens due to their parentage or through their birthplace, but neither have both and thus rise to the level of a natural born citizen.
The phraseology of ‘citizen at birth’ does little more than create a comparison to citizen at conception and/or mislead one to a false equivalence between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen.’
Has Ted Cruz said “I am a natural born citizen” without modifying or qualifying?
The Constitution specifies a US Citizen for House and Senate and a natural born citizen for President. Are you saying that the Constitution is wrong and a US Citizen and a natural born citizen are the same thing?
Your clarification of the Naturalization Act to explain the claim of a statute defining one a ‘natural born citizen’ was repealed in full 5 years later as described below.
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted “natural born” from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II “natural born Citizen.” While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived “natural born” phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be “natural born Citizens.”
The uniform definition of “natural born Citizen” was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II “natural born Citizen?” After all, a “natural born Citizen” was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Did either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio have to file an application for U.S. Citizenship? No. End of story. It really is just that simple.
You mean was there ever a requirement in a US Law or statute that had some bearing on their citizenship?
Some additional condition or explanation or qualification for THEIR citizenship as opposed to someone who was born to US Citizen parents in a State or Commonwealth in the Union?
Totally agree but as the Constitution’s text does not clearly define “Natural Born Citizen” unequivocally and the birther contingent tend to want to ignore the dozens and dozens of legal case precedents and actual 2008 and 2012 favorable Federal Circuit Court rulings on the matter it just doesn’t every seem to go away. The Obama issue is still unbelievably alive even today given the accepted fact that his mother was a US born citizen, period. Good luck but I’m not sure facts will win the day in this argument.