Ted Cruz is Ineligible for the Presidency

[pErvinalia]

My cousin born in 1980 in the US to Aussie parents has what i thought was dual oz-us citizenship. He has both passports.

[Tero]

That was 1980. 1970 was different.

"Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter," Cruz said at the time.

Then he took immediate steps to renounce his Canadian citizenship.

Dual citizenship had previously been banned in the United States, but in 1967 the US Supreme Court struck down most laws forbidding dual citizenship.

However, the US government remained disdainful of dual citizenship for some time. To this day, candidates for US citizenship through naturalization are forced to (at least hypothetically) renounce their previous citizenship at the United States naturalization ceremony.

https://www.legallanguage.com/legal-art ... ed-states/

Cruz was born in 1970 and Canada did not allow dual citizenship till 1978
http://oppenheimer.mcgill.ca/IMG/pdf/IRPP_Study_no6.pdf

Cruz had Canadian citizenship till a few years ago, so he had it in 1970. The only way to get that was at birth in 1970. He then became "dual" by 1978, but not in 1974 when he moved to the US. He was the Canadian son of a US mom for 4 years.

[Seth]

Again, as far as I'm concerned, there is no contest in regard to whose analysis of this question is more reliable: A respected jurist educated in the United States in the early years of the 18th century, sitting on the bench of one of the pre-eminent courts of the United States, or some guy on the internet. As Sandford states, this issue had not been ruled on previously. Unless a subsequent contradictory ruling exists, then his analysis has validity. You have not presented a contradictory ruling, in fact you've failed to cite any sources at all.

As I said, the holding in a state court case regarding the right of Julia Clarke to inherit property is not determinative of the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as applied to the constitutional requirement for serving as President of the United States.

His duty, and his authority to rule, were limited by the facts of the case to determining only whether or not Julia Clarke was a citizen of the United States. Insofar as her right to inherit property it doesn't matter is she is a "citizen" a "natural born citizen" a "native citizen" or a "naturalized citizen." All that was required, and all that the ruling affirms is that she was a citizen. His dicta regarding other classes of citizenship are, well, dicta and have no legal effect and form no precedent, and that is simply a well-understood legal fact. Judges cannot rule inferentially, they can only rule on matters that are before them brought properly. He was not asked, nor was he authorized to rule on presidential eligibility because that question was not before him. His loquacity in expounding on his beliefs about the common law are only of value insofar as deciding the issue of Julia Clarke's eligibility to inherit, which she was by virtue of the fact that she was born on US soil, which at the time of the case, 1844, was already settled law.

If the expositions of judges in dicta were ruling precedent life would be much different in the US, but they aren't. He was not "interpreting" the law at all, he was merely blathering on and on about something which could have been disposed of in the following 23 words: "Julia Clarke was born on American soil and is therefore a citizen of the United States who is eligible to inherit her uncle's estate."

His exegesis beyond that, which is in fact what he ruled, although he used about 29,977 words more than necessary...which is exactly why it's called obiter dicta.

His opinion is interesting but it is the original intent of the Founders which rules the day, and the common law understandings of the term "natural born citizen" in effect at the time the constitution was written may be best (and most authoritatively and contemporaneously) found in Vattel's "The Law of Nations."

The Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter 19, § 212-217. Of the citizens and natives.

CHAP. XIX. OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 211. What is our country.

THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country — a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.

§ 212. Citizens and natives. Note: some references state that the correct translation is "naturals" rather than "natives."

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

§ 216. Children born at sea.

As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

And then there is the preeminent authority on American law, Blackstone's Commentaries of 1803.

As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.

And St. George Tucker, the editor of Blackstone's Commentaries writes:

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens.

[Animavore]

There isn't a single Republican candidate who isn't a complete and utter tool. And as for Trump, if he wins it's the rest of the World's turn to invade America for once and overthrow the government and install our own puppet.

Sanders is the only worthy candidate.

[L'Emmerdeur]

As I said . . .

You disparage Sandford's decision, even though he clearly explains that the reason he's examining the issue of what is understood by the term "natural born citizen" is because there had been no previous rulings on that. I do appreciate your willingness to try to support your position with sources. Sandford was educated in American law when both of your sources were more or less contemporary, and surely would have been familiar with them, as works of legal theory. On the other hand, Sandford's decision examines how the term is used in American legislation of his day, and clearly demonstrates that in that legislation, the issue of parentage is not a determining factor in regard to who qualifies as a "natural born citizen." While your sources are important theoretical works, they are not legislation, and they do not show how the term was actually used in the legislation of the day, which is precisely what Sandford's decision does.

Since we're looking at sources other than judicial decisions--

The legal definition of the term "naturalization" shows that in American law, it is not parentage but place of birth that determines who is a "natural born citizen" and who must be "naturalized" in order to become an American citizen. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2:

The process under federal law whereby a foreign-born person may be granted citizenship. In order to qualify for naturalization, an applicant must meet a number of statutory requirements, including those related to residency, literacy, and education, as well as an exhibition of "good moral character" and a demonstration of an attachment to constitutional principles upon which the United States is based.

We see that a foreign-born person is "naturalized" in the process of becoming a citizen of the United States. There is no mention of parentage having any relevance to citizenship status.

A person who is born in the United States, on the other hand, is a "natural born citizen" regardless of the status of that person's parents. This position is further substantiated by the report from the Congressional Research Service on this topic, which completely agrees with Sandford's decision.

In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

To refute this position, you will have to do more than cite books on legal theory. You'll need to show that the Congressional Research Service is incorrect. Bring a reference from controlling American case law which supports your contention regarding parentage being the determining factor in regards to who is or is not a "natural born citizen."

[Forty Two]

But he was reborn when he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. And that was in the US!

Ah, the Natural Born (Again) Citizen clause of the Constitution...forgot about that one!

[NineBerry]

Or we could all just agree that in this age of global mass communication, where and under what circumstances someone is born should play no role on whether she can become President.

Someone burn and raised in the US by US parents can still become influenced by foreign ideologies or governments. So that is not a good criteria to prevent moles. On the other hand, today all candidates for President have decades of well documented behaviour in the public. The Electorate knows how candidates behaved during their life so far. Something you could not know in the 19th century when there was so little flow of information.

[NineBerry]

But he was reborn when he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. And that was in the US!

Ah, the Natural Born (Again) Citizen clause of the Constitution...forgot about that one!

The Constitution doesn't mention anywhere that you can be born only once in your life! And since America was (as we all know) founded as a Christian Nation under God, who could think being spiritually reborn as a Christian would be considered less important than the biological birth?

[Forty Two]

Be interesting to see if the Democrats reverse course if Cruz gets the nomination and start arguing the salient point that everyone glosses over, which is that while a child born to TWO American citizens, regardless of where in the world the child is born, is by law and custom a "natural born citizen", a child born to ONE American citizen parent and a foreign national is NOT a "natural born citizen."

This is not correct either. Being born overseas to two American parents doesn't make you a "Natural Born" Citizen. It can make you a "citizen at birth" but that's different than the constitutional term, "Natural Born Citizen." The only customary exceptions were if you were born by happenstance on an airplane, in an airport, or on a military base or embassy where it is arguably American jurisdiction. Or, if your parents were on vacation or something. But, even that is not tested or settled law. Certainly if they lived overseas, you aren't a natural born citizen just because mom and dad are American.

Further, if you ever held foreign citizenship, you couldn't have American citizenship. Cruz was born at a time where if you held Canadian citizenship at birth, you could not legally hold American citizenship, let alone be a natural born citizen.

There is good reason - if you're a natural born citizen just by having 2 American parents, then you could live your whole life overseas and still be eligible to run fro President. That wasn't the intent.

The 2 American parents theory is the reverse of what you're saying. What's posited is that even being born in the US was not enough in and of itself. You had to be born in the US to two American parents. That was the old school citizenship test under common law.

Such children are "citizens of the United States" by virtue of their single American citizen parent, but for the purposes of holding the office of President, they do not meet the requirement of being a "natural born citizen", regardless of where they were actually born, either within or without the boundaries of the United States. It is the citizenship of the PARENTS that determines "natural born" status, not the place of birth.

It is the citizenship of the parents AND place of birth, under the legal analysis you are referring to.

We went through this same debate with Obama, and it was never actually resolved by the Supreme Court, which it should be.

The problem with the interpretation used to justify Obama's and now Cruz's status as "natural born citizens" is that the phrase "natural born citizen" is used only once in the Constitution, and that is to explicitly limit candidacy for President and no other purpose.

In all other cases in the Constitution a person is referred to either as a "citizen" or "naturalized citizen," but NEVER "natural born citizen."

Because the use of the "natural born" term is a nod to English common law as set forth in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which set forth Natural Born Subject of the King as being one who was born within the real estate ruled by the King.

Blackstone distinguished between "natural" and "local" allegiance to the King. "Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due."

When the Constitution was written, this was the context of "natural born." You were born in the Kingdom and owed allegiance to the King from the moment of birth because you were under the King's protection at that time.

The rules of statutory construction state that where such a distinction is made, it is presumed to have been made for a reason and intentionally by those who drafted and ratified the law. Because the terms "citizen", "naturalized citizen", and "natural born citizen" are not synonymous it is necessary to examine the historical contextual connotation of the terms as understood by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution to find their original intent in making that specific restriction, "natural born" to the qualifications for the presidency.

And when we look at this historical evidence, we find that their specific intent was precisely to prevent any person, BOTH of whose parents were at the time of birth "citizens" (including "naturalized" citizens) of the United States, from holding the office of President.

So, neither Obama, whose father was a Kenyan and British citizen, nor Cruz, whose father is a Canadian citizen, are legally eligible to hold that office.

I think that if Obama was born in Hawaii, then he's Natural Born. He was born under the protection of the United States and as such owed a duty of allegiance from birth. Cruz, however, was born in Canada and had only one American parent, AND he owed allegiance to Canada from birth -- he held Canadian citizenship from birth. So, he is not a Natural Born Citizen. The case of Cruz's ineligibility is much clearer than Obama's.

[Animavore]

There goes my dream of running for President.

[Svartalf]

You can still become guv'ner of a state, or maybe even a congressman or senator

[Tero]

And....Kissinger!

[Forty Two]

That was 1980. 1970 was different.

"Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter," Cruz said at the time.

Then he took immediate steps to renounce his Canadian citizenship.

Dual citizenship had previously been banned in the United States, but in 1967 the US Supreme Court struck down most laws forbidding dual citizenship.

However, the US government remained disdainful of dual citizenship for some time. To this day, candidates for US citizenship through naturalization are forced to (at least hypothetically) renounce their previous citizenship at the United States naturalization ceremony.

https://www.legallanguage.com/legal-art ... ed-states/

Cruz was born in 1970 and Canada did not allow dual citizenship till 1978
http://oppenheimer.mcgill.ca/IMG/pdf/IRPP_Study_no6.pdf

Cruz had Canadian citizenship till a few years ago, so he had it in 1970. The only way to get that was at birth in 1970. He then became "dual" by 1978, but not in 1974 when he moved to the US. He was the Canadian son of a US mom for 4 years.

Correct, and add to that -- we're not talking about mere "citizenship." One can have dual "nationality" (nationality and citizenship being distinct concepts too), but one can be a naturalized citizen, a citizen at birth, or a Natural Born Citizen -- these are all distinct concepts, with Natural Born Citizen being akin to Natural Born Subject under the English common law -- England didn't have "citizens" at common law (which is a republican concept) --- people were "subjects" of the Crown. People were "citizens" of the US. The "Natural Born" bit was a function of allegiance - which when you are "natural born" you hold allegiance to the Crown/State automatically, not through any act of your own.

[Forty Two]

There isn't a single Republican candidate who isn't a complete and utter tool. And as for Trump, if he wins it's the rest of the World's turn to invade America for once and overthrow the government and install our own puppet.

Sanders is the only worthy candidate.

I wouldn't say that -- Jeb Bush is not a tool. He was a very good, competent and successful Governor of Florida. Also, John Kasich of Ohio isn't bad. Chris Christie is o.k., too
I like Carly Fiorina too. Competent businessperson. Highly successful. Driven.

Sanders is an avowed Socialist. It's either his time, or he's just a decade premature. Socialism has already been sold to the under 40 crowd. It's only the 40+ folks that are holding it back. Capitalism is done in the US. The under 30 crowd has been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking socialism is good and kind and caring, and far better for the common person than capitalism. And, they view capitalism as greedy, survival of the fittest social darwinism.

[Forty Two]

Or we could all just agree that in this age of global mass communication, where and under what circumstances someone is born should play no role on whether she can become President.

I wouldn't agree. The issue has to do with loyalty and allegiance. Not qualifications.

Someone burn and raised in the US by US parents can still become influenced by foreign ideologies or governments. So that is not a good criteria to prevent moles. On the other hand, today all candidates for President have decades of well documented behaviour in the public. The Electorate knows how candidates behaved during their life so far. Something you could not know in the 19th century when there was so little flow of information.

Nothing is a guarantee, but it is a better control than any other that we have. I mean, opening the door wide open would allow people born and raised in Moscow or Beijing to run. You don't want to have foreign persons with the financial backing of entire States behind a candidate, and you really don't want a enemy governments being able to enter candidates in election races.