Cruz's Defense of Eligibility Is Interesting

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Now that Trump has raised it, it's getting attention.

One of Cruz's reactions has been to release his mother's birth certificate. Nobody is questioning his mother's status. Nor is she running for president.

Another of his arguments is that this is settled law. As he put it today "as a legal matter the constitution and federal law are clear that the child of a US citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen."

Well . . . no. That isn't true. The constitution does not say that. The constitution merely requires the president to be a natural born citizen.

No one is denying that Cruz is a citizen. Nor is anyone denying that he was born outside the US. The only question is whether he is a natural born citizen.

The founders clearly meant to distinguish natural born citizens from other citizens. If they hadn't intended that, why even mention it? But what did they mean by natural born citizen? I think it's pretty clear they meant "born in the US."

Why do I think that's clear? Because they carved out an exception for certain people who were not born in the US, to make them eligible. Those being people present in the US when it was formed. Why do you need to carve out an exception for those not born here if you don't mean "born here' when you set the requirement that they be natural born citizens. If they had just meant "citizen" then they wouldn't have needed to say any of that.

It's fun to watch Cruz lie, deflect, squirm and slander in an effort to get through his session on State of the Union today. I love comments like "fevered swamp theories" and the attempt to hijack the conversation by shifting to talk about a shooting in Philadelphia or whining about how everyone is attacking him.

As a lefty, I don't think the natural born requirement makes any sense. But here's the thing: my opinion doesn't change what the constitution says.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

if trump wants to make him vp, they better put all this to rest

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson: I’ll file suit if ‘Canadian’ Ted Cruz wins nomination
Rep. Alan Grayson said Wednesday that he plans to file suit if Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, wins the Republican presidential nomination.

Speaking with liberal Fox News radio host Alan Colmes, Mr. Grayson, a Florida Democrat, called the 2016 Republican presidential lineup “appalling.”

“It’s resolved itself into this weird reality show. It’s not ‘The Biggest Loser’ that they’re choosing, it’s ‘The Biggest Bigot,’” he said.

Mr. Colmes asked if all of the GOP candidates are bigots.

“Well show me one who represents the exception here,” Mr. Grayson responded. “In a sense I guess Cruz is not technically that way, because he’s technically not even an American.”

“Well, his mother was born here,” Mr. Colmes replied, “though it’s interesting to me that the people who had a problem with Obama’s birth certificate don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz who literally was born in another country. And he renounced his Canadian citizenry.”

Mr. Grayson added, “The Constitution says natural-born Americans, so now we’re counting Canadians as natural-born Americans? How does that work? I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he’s in eligible.”

Asked if he’s serious about his threat to sue, Mr. Grayson said “Absolutely. Call me crazy but I think the president of America should be an American.”

“Even the anchor babies actually are born here. He doesn’t even meet that qualification,” he added.

Copyright © 2016 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

so, only americans can be bigots? got it. I guess cruz is exempt from bigotry then, according to this. good to know.

 

[TexMichFan]

This issue is as silly now as it was with McCain and Obama.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

Can someone be a natural born citizen of two countries?

 

[aflachawk]

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson: I’ll file suit if ‘Canadian’ Ted Cruz wins nomination
Rep. Alan Grayson said Wednesday that he plans to file suit if Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, wins the Republican presidential nomination.

Speaking with liberal Fox News radio host Alan Colmes, Mr. Grayson, a Florida Democrat, called the 2016 Republican presidential lineup “appalling.”

“It’s resolved itself into this weird reality show. It’s not ‘The Biggest Loser’ that they’re choosing, it’s ‘The Biggest Bigot,’” he said.

Mr. Colmes asked if all of the GOP candidates are bigots.

“Well show me one who represents the exception here,” Mr. Grayson responded. “In a sense I guess Cruz is not technically that way, because he’s technically not even an American.”

“Well, his mother was born here,” Mr. Colmes replied, “though it’s interesting to me that the people who had a problem with Obama’s birth certificate don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz who literally was born in another country. And he renounced his Canadian citizenry.”

Mr. Grayson added, “The Constitution says natural-born Americans, so now we’re counting Canadians as natural-born Americans? How does that work? I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he’s in eligible.”

Asked if he’s serious about his threat to sue, Mr. Grayson said “Absolutely. Call me crazy but I think the president of America should be an American.”

“Even the anchor babies actually are born here. He doesn’t even meet that qualification,” he added.

Copyright © 2016 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

I can only hope this comes true. I would love to see Cruz the Republican nominee and the Dems(led by a crazy bomb thrower like Grayson) raising the issue and bringing it to court. It would be the biggest gift Dems could give the Republicans

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This issue is as silly now as it was with McCain and Obama.

I don't think it was silly with either of those.

For most of us it seemed silly for Obama because we believed he was born in the US. But what if he actually had been born in Kenya? I still would have thought it was one of the many stupid things in our constitution that should be modernized, but it IS in the constitution, so it SHOULD have disqualified Obama, if it had been true.

As for McCain, that wasn't silly, either. Note that with McCain we resolved his status by deciding that US military bases (like US embassies) count as part of the US for this purpose. Ditto for Goldwater, who was born in then-US-territory Arizona - although I don't recall his eligibility being challenged at that time. All perfectly reasonable.

Canada is none of those.

The other time I recall this being raised was over George Romney. But unlike McCain and Goldwater, Romney never got the nomination.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

basically, it was originally intended to make sure the people we eventually got as prez, did not have loyalties and ties to another country, i.e. England. we know for a fact Obama certainly has loyalties and ties to another country, to another philosophy, is anti-American, and hates America, and is out to destroy America. even if he was born on mars, does not matter. with Obama, the original intent of the law is now becoming relevant. Does cruz have loyalties and ties to cuba or Canada? does McCain have ties to panama? I dunno. probably not. does Obama have ties to communism and the muslim brotherhood?? oh yeah!! no doubt. even if he were born here. or Hawaii. or mars.

 

[artradley]

I've always assumed natural born means you were a citizen at birth, as opposed to somebody who was not a citizen at birth but rather was later naturalized. Hence Schwatzenager is not eligible but Cruz is.

The exception carved out made perfect sense because for some period of time prospective presidents were born before this country existed.

 

[strummingram]

To me, this shows how easily people are led to hypocrisy. The people who live by their party's every move- and there are a LOT OF THEM on here- are being caught in their own suspicions. It was an incessant tirade when Obama was allegedly born in Kenya. Even if he was Hawaiian, his father was Kenyan.

Now, here we are with Ted "Uber Conservative" Cruz. I don't care if he's conservative, liberal, or a pop-tart... he is NOT a "natural born" American citizen. Not now, not ever. Being born in Canada, having dual citizenship until a year ago, and having one parent who was a citizen of yet ANOTHER country when he was born, makes Ted about as unqualified, from a citizenship perspective, as any candidate ever has been in history!

So, if you had ANY inclination that Obama's citizenship was a disqualification, then you'd better be insisting that Ted Cruz drop-out immediately because he is even less of a natural-born citizen than Barack Obama.

If you can be born in another country and still be a natural born US Citizen, then the term "natural born" is useless.

 

[IamHawkeye]

I don't think it was silly with either of those.

For most of us it seemed silly for Obama because we believed he was born in the US. But what if he actually had been born in Kenya? I still would have thought it was one of the many stupid things in our constitution that should be modernized, but it IS in the constitution, so it SHOULD have disqualified Obama, if it had been true.

As for McCain, that wasn't silly, either. Note that with McCain we resolved his status by deciding that US military bases (like US embassies) count as part of the US for this purpose. Ditto for Goldwater, who was born in then-US-territory Arizona - although I don't recall his eligibility being challenged at that time. All perfectly reasonable.

Canada is none of those.

The other time I recall this being raised was over George Romney. But unlike McCain and Goldwater, Romney never got the nomination.

It isn't military bases as such , but certain US areas that resolve certain births like McCain's. He was born in the US Canal Zone, which at that time was a US run area. Puerto Rico and Guam are two more. Those born in these areas do have to have their parents go to the consulate or embassy of a foreign country of their birth to register them as Americans, such as Cruz's parents would have to(and I assume they did).
I would hope this can be resolved by the Supreme Court in the somewhat near future, though I hope not because of Cruz. Everything is more global than it used to be, but I would like our future presidents to at least spend most of their growing years in the US, even if born somewhere else, so as to have a perspective of how is it to grow up American. And what about foreign born babies, adopted at a young age, don't they grow up American? Gee, just thought of them.

 

[unIowa]

This issue is as silly now as it was with McCain and Obama.

The birther movement is bound by no one party.

 

[strummingram]

This is somewhat like George Romney's campaign. He also was NOT a natural-born US Citizen. He was born in Mexico and was a citizen of Mexico as a result! When you're born somewhere, you're a citizen of that location, in my opinion. It's pretty unavoidable to be otherwise! You cannot be born somewhere and claim to have been born somewhere else. Well, you can technically claim it, but you're still born where you were born!

 

[NoleSoup4U]

This is somewhat like George Romney's campaign. He also was NOT a natural-born US Citizen. He was born in Mexico and was a citizen of Mexico as a result! When you're born somewhere, you're a citizen of that location, in my opinion. It's pretty unavoidable to claim otherwise! You cannot be born somewhere and claim to have been born somewhere else. Well, you can technically claim it, but you're still born where you were born!

It's like claiming that you're not a fascist, but you support fascist policies.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I've always assumed natural born means you were a citizen at birth, as opposed to somebody who was not a citizen at birth but rather was later naturalized. Hence Schwatzenager is not eligible but Cruz is.

The exception carved out made perfect sense because for some period of time prospective presidents were born before this country existed.

the problem is: the founders did not care about where you were born, it was where your loyalties did lie. they wanted your father, not your mother, but your father, to not pledge to England. Obama got in trouble because he claimed his daddy was a british citizen, Kenya was british at the time. the founders did not care about barry's mommy.

 

[TJ8869]

In my opinion, natural born citizen means that person was granted birthright citizenship, either by blood or by soil. Cruz obviously doesn't qualify for jus solis since he was born in Canada. But he most likely qualified for jus sanguinis since his mother was a natural born American citizen. There are certain criteria that must be met for Cruz to be eligible for jus sanguinis. His mother must have lived in the United States for at least 10 years of her life prior to his birth, and at least 5 of those years must have been after she was 14 years old.

Technically speaking, Obama was not eligible for jus sanguinis simply because his mother was only 18 when he was born. So mathematically it was impossible for her to satisfy the 5 year requirement until age 19. That's nit-picking, though, since I think she had lived her entire life in the United States up to that point.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't think it was silly with either of those.

For most of us it seemed silly for Obama because we believed he was born in the US. But what if he actually had been born in Kenya? I still would have thought it was one of the many stupid things in our constitution that should be modernized, but it IS in the constitution, so it SHOULD have disqualified Obama, if it had been true.

As for McCain, that wasn't silly, either. Note that with McCain we resolved his status by deciding that US military bases (like US embassies) count as part of the US for this purpose. Ditto for Goldwater, who was born in then-US-territory Arizona - although I don't recall his eligibility being challenged at that time. All perfectly reasonable.

Canada is none of those.

The other time I recall this being raised was over George Romney. But unlike McCain and Goldwater, Romney never got the nomination.

Note that by the Cruz definition, had Obama been born in Kenya, that would not be a problem.

 

[TJ8869]

Can someone be a natural born citizen of two countries?

Of course they can, if they meet the natural born citizenship requirements of both countries.

In fact, I think it's probably even possible to be a natural born citizen of three countries. For example, a person born on U.S. soil to a father from another country that recognizes birthright citizenship by blood and a mother from yet another country that also recognizes birthright citizenship by blood through the mother.

 

[pablow]

I would think natural born means a citizen at (or by ) birth. Aren't these anchor babies natural born U.S. citizens?

A person who gains citizenship through the naturalization process is not natuaral born IMO.

 

[strummingram]

If you can't swing being BORN IN THE USA, then you're going to have to settle for a senator, congressman, or some other bought-off criminal position in government. You can't be president.

 

[TJ8869]

the problem is: the founders did not care about where you were born, it was where your loyalties did lie. they wanted your father, not your mother, but your father, to not pledge to England. Obama got in trouble because he claimed his daddy was a british citizen, Kenya was british at the time. the founders did not care about barry's mommy.

I've seen you make this same claim numerous times, but you don't seem to realize that the law has changed since the days of the Founding Fathers. In 1934 the law was changed to recognize the birthright of children born to mothers who are American citizens. It's a little bit like how the Founding Fathers didn't give women the right to vote, but eventually we got around to rectifying the situation.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I've always assumed natural born means you were a citizen at birth, as opposed to somebody who was not a citizen at birth but rather was later naturalized. Hence Schwatzenager is not eligible but Cruz is.

The exception carved out made perfect sense because for some period of time prospective presidents were born before this country existed.

You may have always assumed that, but how long has that been? That's certainly what Cruz is selling. But it definitely wasn't what was believed a few decades ago or we would never have needed to find work-arounds for McCain and Goldwater. It wouldn't have been a concern for George Romney. And it never would have been an issue for Obama even for those who challenged his birthplace.

Again, NOBODY is questioning that Cruz is a citizen. But if "citizen" means exactly the same thing as "natural born citizen" why did the founders go to the trouble to specify "natural born citizen"?

Cruz is obviously worried. Why else does he keep harping on and proving that his mother was a citizen? NOBODY doubts that. But he acts like that's what's being questioned. And that simply isn't the case. What's being questioned is whether someone who wasn't born in the US, or at a US embassy, or on a US base, or in a US territory, counts as "natural born."

I also find it fun that many people point to US laws to justify their positions. Laws can't redefine the meaning of the constitution.

This should probably go to the Supreme Court. Where it could get very interesting. Does this very political, conservative court rule for the nation, the GOP, Cruz ...? Because those don't necessarily produce the same rulings.

 

[pablow]

Read the XIV amendment - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . ." If born in the USA is the standard, it's not too difficult to just write it up that way. A natural born US citizen is a person that gains citizenship by virtue of birth, as opposed to naturalization. I don't think this is all that difficult.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Note that by the Cruz definition, had Obama been born in Kenya, that would not be a problem.

Yep.

Not that that inconsistency will keep many of the birthers from voting for Cruz. They probably won't even acknowledge their hypocrisy.

 

[pablow]

You may have always assumed that, but how long has that been? That's certainly what Cruz is selling. But it definitely wasn't what was believed a few decades ago or we would never have needed to find work-arounds for McCain and Goldwater. It wouldn't have been a concern for George Romney. And it never would have been an issue for Obama even for those who challenged his birthplace.

Again, NOBODY is questioning that Cruz is a citizen. But if "citizen" means exactly the same thing as "natural born citizen" why did the founders go to the trouble to specify "natural born citizen"?

Cruz is obviously worried. Why else does he keep harping on and proving that his mother was a citizen? NOBODY doubts that. But he acts like that's what's being questioned. And that simply isn't the case. What's being questioned is whether someone who wasn't born in the US, or at a US embassy, or on a US base, or in a US territory, counts as "natural born."

I also find it fun that many people point to US laws to justify their positions. Laws can't redefine the meaning of the constitution.

This should probably go to the Supreme Court. Where it could get very interesting. Does this very political, conservative court rule for the nation, the GOP, Cruz ...? Because those don't necessarily produce the same rulings.

Read the XIV amendment - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . ." If born in the USA is the standard, it's not too difficult to just write it up that way. A natural born US citizen is a person that gains citizenship by virtue of birth, as opposed to naturalization. I don't think this is all that difficult.

 

[strummingram]

Yep.

Not that that inconsistency will keep many of the birthers from voting for Cruz. They probably won't even acknowledge their hypocrisy.

How many people have humility in general?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Read the XIV amendment - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . ." If born in the USA is the standard, it's not too difficult to just write it up that way. A natural born US citizen is a person that gains citizenship by virtue of birth, as opposed to naturalization. I don't think this is all that difficult.

Hmmm. Was Cruz born here? Nope. Was he naturalized? Don't think so. I guess 14A doesn't apply to him.

Needless to say 14A does not affect or change the eligibility requirement for the presidency.

There are plenty of ways the founders could have made this more clear. They didn't. Clearly a bunch of idiots.

Why do we feel bound by a document written by idiots that no one alive today even voted to accept?

 

[pablow]

If you can't swing being BORN IN THE USA, then you're going to have to settle for a senator, congressman, or some other bought-off criminal position in government. You can't be president.

In fairness, the argument between the birthers and Obama's supporters never got past the issue of where he was born, as opposed to where we are now - the consequences of it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

How many people have humility in general?

4

 

[pablow]

Hmmm. Was Cruz born here? Nope. Was he naturalized? Don't think so. I guess 14A doesn't apply to him.

Needless to say 14A does not affect or change the eligibility requirement for the presidency.

There are plenty of ways the founders could have made this more clear. They didn't. Clearly a bunch of idiots.

Why do we feel bound by a document written by idiots that no one alive today even voted to accept?

I'm only referring to the 14th A. as an example of how it's possible to word "born in the USA." The 14th A. has no other relevance to the discussions. But courts do look to other constitutional provisions to clarify ambiguious language.

Even if the Framers were idiots, courts have to try to make sense of it. Are yesterday's idiots any dumber than today's idiots?

 

[THE_DEVIL]

4

Yes, but they are all dead.

 

[TJ8869]

I also find it fun that many people point to US laws to justify their positions. Laws can't redefine the meaning of the constitution.

Yikes. I guess we can throw out the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act then. The Constitution doesn't expressly give blacks the right to vote and own property and whatnot. So it's tough noogies for negroes. Better luck in the next revolution, fellas.

 

[artradley]

You may have always assumed that, but how long has that been?

Huh? How long has it been? Well...always. As in, when I first considered what the phrase means, which was probably in the early 70's.

Again, NOBODY is questioning that Cruz is a citizen. But if "citizen" means exactly the same thing as "natural born citizen" why did the founders go to the trouble to specify "natural born citizen"?

I don't think you read my post very well. A natural born citizen has been a citizen since the day they were born. That is different and distinct from somebody who was not a US citizen by birth, but rather became a naturalized citizen later. Hence, "citizen" does NOT mean the same thing as "natural born citizen." Again, that's why The Terminator is not eligible, but Cruz is.

Cruz is obviously worried. Why else does he keep harping on and proving that his mother was a citizen? NOBODY doubts that. But he acts like that's what's being questioned. And that simply isn't the case. What's being questioned is whether someone who wasn't born in the US, or at a US embassy, or on a US base, or in a US territory, counts as "natural born."

He might be worried because of the political issues, and how nonsense like this can detract from his campaign. But there is no question about a requirement that you are born in the US; I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court made that clarification (which I had "always" assumed) when they declared that McCain was eligible. I admit, however, I know nothing about the Goldwater issue.

 

[Jan Itor]

Now that Trump has raised it, it's getting attention.

One of Cruz's reactions has been to release his mother's birth certificate. Nobody is questioning his mother's status. Nor is she running for president.

Another of his arguments is that this is settled law. As he put it today "as a legal matter the constitution and federal law are clear that the child of a US citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen."

Well . . . no. That isn't true. The constitution does not say that. The constitution merely requires the president to be a natural born citizen.

No one is denying that Cruz is a citizen. Nor is anyone denying that he was born outside the US. The only question is whether he is a natural born citizen.

The founders clearly meant to distinguish natural born citizens from other citizens. If they hadn't intended that, why even mention it? But what did they mean by natural born citizen? I think it's pretty clear they meant "born in the US."

Why do I think that's clear? Because they carved out an exception for certain people who were not born in the US, to make them eligible. Those being people present in the US when it was formed. Why do you need to carve out an exception for those not born here if you don't mean "born here' when you set the requirement that they be natural born citizens. If they had just meant "citizen" then they wouldn't have needed to say any of that.

It's fun to watch Cruz lie, deflect, squirm and slander in an effort to get through his session on State of the Union today. I love comments like "fevered swamp theories" and the attempt to hijack the conversation by shifting to talk about a shooting in Philadelphia or whining about how everyone is attacking him.

As a lefty, I don't think the natural born requirement makes any sense. But here's the thing: my opinion doesn't change what the constitution says.

So you think they meant physically born vs not physically born in the U.S. Could they have meant being the child of a U.S. Citizen vs not being born to a U.S. citizen and having to file for citizenship?

Either way, I hope Cruz's numbers fall and fall quickly. He and Trump are not good options. Are they better or worse than Clinton? I don't know, but none of those three will get my vote.

 

[Speedway1]

To me, this shows how easily people are led to hypocrisy. The people who live by their party's every move- and there are a LOT OF THEM on here- are being caught in their own suspicions. It was an incessant tirade when Obama was allegedly born in Kenya. Even if he was Hawaiian, his father was Kenyan.

Now, here we are with Ted "Uber Conservative" Cruz. I don't care if he's conservative, liberal, or a pop-tart... he is NOT a "natural born" American citizen. Not now, not ever. Being born in Canada, having dual citizenship until a year ago, and having one parent who was a citizen of yet ANOTHER country when he was born, makes Ted about as unqualified, from a citizenship perspective, as any candidate ever has been in history!

So, if you had ANY inclination that Obama's citizenship was a disqualification, then you'd better be insisting that Ted Cruz drop-out immediately because he is even less of a natural-born citizen than Barack Obama.

If you can be born in another country and still be a natural born US Citizen, then the term "natural born" is useless.

I don't care as long as the new POTUS is NOT Hillary or Jeb!

 

[Jan Itor]

Yep.

Not that that inconsistency will keep many of the birthers from voting for Cruz. They probably won't even acknowledge their hypocrisy.

Aren't you bordering on being a birther now?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Not bordering, he is now clearly a "birther."

Although I think WWJD's position on this is rather single-minded, it is quite different than what happened with Obama.

Here he is using Cruz's admissions of the facts, where the Obama birther a were, and still are, calling him and his proof liars.

I'm with Pablo's, "Natural born" means the person was a natural, or definitive, citizen at birth ... by nature of the laws at the time. Being born inside the US? Natural at birth, being born to an American mother and some other things? Natural at birth.

Shouldn't be complicated. A person who goes through a naturalization process doesn't fit, even though the should. Unlike WWJD I don't think the original clause was inconsistent with its exception.

 

[theIowaHawk]

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

"voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad."

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

"voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad."

Cruz's case isn't nearly that simple. Born in Canada, lived in Canada for his first few years. Had they not moved to the US, he would obviously be Canadian - which he was until 2 years ago.