LF: Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks at the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Legislative Conference and Presidential Forum in Washington.

While questions about Canadian-born Sen. Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president haven’t drawn much attention, two former Justice Department lawyers have weighed in with a bipartisan verdict: Cruz, they say, is eligible to run for the White House.

Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clemente, solicitor general in President George W. Bush’s administration, got out in front of the issue in a Harvard Law Review article.

“There is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” they wrote.

Anti-Cruz “birthers” had questioned the Texas Republican senator’s eligibility to be president, challenging his citizenship status because he was born in Canada. Two years ago, Cruz released his birth certificate showing his mother was a U.S. citizen born in Delaware, presumably satisfying the requirements for presidential eligibility as a “natural born citizen.”

The law review article, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen”, asserts that the interpretation of the term was settled in Cruz’s favor as early as the 1700’s. The lawyers wrote that the Supreme Court has long used British common law and enactments of the First Congress for guidance on defining a “natural born citizen.”

“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,” they wrote. They concluded someone like Cruz had “no need to go through naturalization proceedings,” making him eligible. Cruz is still weighing a presidential run.

Last month, Cruz addressed the citizenship issue during a question-and-answer session with moderator Sean Hannity, of Fox News, at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I was born in Calgary. My mother was an American citizen by birth,” Cruz said. “Under federal law, that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.” (1 image)

Legal status? WTF does that have to do with U.S. citizenship? When Ted Cruz was born in Canada, his father had Canadian citizenship.

Seems to me that Canada could just as easily say that since Ted Cruz was born on Canadian soil to a Canadian father, he's a natural born Canadian citizen.

Do you think that wet wetbacks are more of a citizen then a U.S soldier who would happen to have his child born in say Germany?

Here is what it has to do with. I read an article a few years ago that made that point better then I did.

According to the 14th amendment, a child born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. In my opinion, it's time to modify that amendment by adding the phrase "... born to a least one citizen parent".

I can't bring myself to vote for Cruz without feeling a little hypocritical. I think the Kenyan should have been vetted, in regards to his actual birth, better.

I can not condone Cruz's eligibility. It appears the conservatives are trying to explain two wrongs now make a right, Imho.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

Sure. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a father who was a Canadian citizen. Hell, he's more qualified to be Prime Minister than President.

Obombers father was Frank Marshall Davis,a US citizen,devout Marxist,and a bi-sexual child molester.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

IMHO,it's time to change it to state that NO child born of either parent that was an illegal alien when the child was conceived or born has a right to US citizenship,either now or in the future.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

The following, which is not my work, is an analysis of that statement. Note the reference to "parents", not "parent".

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest! "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)). The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest! “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears they ALL where in agreement.

Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people's house regarding "citizenship" and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect's multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.

My copy of the US Constitution doesn't have the phrase 'natural born' in the Fourteenth Amendment.

There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't

I will stand corrected ... if you can show* me otherwise. Since you can't, my statement stands.

And that is the definition of 'natural born' and the reason one needs to be natural born to be POTUS, imho.

Anybody else remember the debate about whether a Catholic (JFK) owed allegiance to another sovereignty (the Vatican) and so should be disqualified from running for President?

There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't

I'm betting your copy of the U.S. Constitution doesn't have a lot of things in it that the U.S. Constitution nevertheless addresses.

The 14th amendment does say a child born on U.S. soil is a citizen, correct? And being born on U.S. soil makes the child natural born.

Certainly if you have another defition of natural born, I'd like to know where you got it from. ("Out of your ass" does not count.)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

But that says nothing about persons born within the Republic of one parent owing allegiance to no other sovereignty. Or no parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.

Had he said, "all other persons born within the Republic, only of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens,then you'd be right.

If an individual is worth $10 million, he's a millionaire. Does that mean a person with $2 million is not?

Strange that the discussion of and about a potential presidential candidate revolves around silly details of being born outside of the USA.

The REAL discussion should be about the reasons for a limited presidential candiadate in the first place. Oh well.

You obviously have been acclimated into indifference by 6 years of O'bunghole. I, on the other hand will never forget how a filthy african bent us all over, made us bite the pillow because he went in dry.

Hopefully the next president helps pass some federal failsafes so the next presidential candidates actually have to prove beyond ANY DOUBT that they qualify.

I personally feel the qualification should be born on US soil by at least one US parental citizen, unless you are on a US military base and one parent is a military member, stationed outside the USA.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

The 14 amendment does not cover natural born, so it's irrelevant to presidential eligibility.

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to
"define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations".

The Law of Nations and The Constitution

``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''
{--Preamble of The Constitution of the United States}

Emmerich de Vattel's text, "The Law of Nations" was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions.

To this day, Great Britain does not have a written constitution, but instead a collection of laws, customs, and institutions, which can be changed by either the Parliament or the monarchy, or by the ``Venetian'' financiers who are the real power over the British Empire. Consequently, the British constitution remains to this day little more than a mask for the arbitrary power of the oligarchy.

The only place of appeal which the American colonists had for unjust laws was to the King's Privy Council. Attempts by the colonists to argue that actions by the British Monarchy and Parliament were unlawful or unconstitutional would be stymied, if they stayed within this legal framework which was essentially arbitrary. Although Vattel praised the British constitution for providing a degree of freedom and lawfulness not seen in most of the German states, his principles of constitutional law were entirely different from the British constitutional arrangements. Consequently, the American colonists attacked the foundation of the King and Parliament's power, by demanding that Vattel's principles of constitutional law be the basis for interpreting the British constitution.

American writers quoted {The Law of Nations} on constitutional law, almost immediately after the book's publication. In 1764, James Otis of Massachusetts argued, in one of the leading pamphlets of the day, ``The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,'' that the colonial charters were constitutional arrangements. He then quoted Vattel, that the right to establish a constitution lies with the nation as a whole, and the Parliament lacked the right to change the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. Boston revolutionary leader Samuel Adams wrote in 1772, ``Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,' `that their authority does not extend so far,' and `that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.'|'' In a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, in 1773, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution.

The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on Leibnizian principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power. The early revolutionary leaders' emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later written, as we will see below.

Citizenship regarding an overseas birth is passed according to then current U.S. law.

Had Obama been born outside the United States (evidence of which is lacking), the applicable law at the time of Obama's birth would have required that his citizen mother "was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years."

As his mother was 18 years old at the time of his birth, it was physically impossible for her to have lived in the United States at least five years after attaining the age of fourteen years.

This is all academic as Obama has a birth certificate from Hawaii, certified by the appropriate official in Hawaii, and which must be accepted in all courts in all states.

There was a serious question about John McCain being a natural born citizen because of another quirk in the law, in effect at the time of his birth, regarding birth in Panama. McCain never produced a birth certificate.

Military bases have no special status. The Base and the Canal Zone were sovereign territory of Panama. By treaty, Panama permitted the U.S. to exercise jurisdiction as if it were the sovereign (but it was not actually the sovereign). The CZ was, for a time, outside the territory of the United States but within its jurisdiction. For a short time, during which McCain was born, the CZ fell outside the 14th Amendment (inside the territory and jurisdiction) and outside a the Federal statute (outside the territory and jurisdiction), in a legal no man's land.

So the Obamanistas are continuing in their end runs around the U.S. Constitution. No one seems aware of how far the left/Muslims have gotten in their efforts to drive the finishing nails in the coffin of what used to be a pretty good country.

There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't

A natural born citizen is one who became a U.S. citizen at birth. The 14th amendment describes how one becomes a citizen when born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, but that is not the exclusive way one may become a natural born citizen. When born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, Federal statute at the time of birth determines the qualifications that must be met.

Just so you know what you are referring to, the Law of Nations is the archaic term for the more modern term, International Law.

International Law has nothing to do with domestic determinations of citizenship.

All 13 original states adopted the Common Law of England, either by their State constitution or Statute law.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
3 Farrand's Records 61, John Jay to George Washington, 25 Jul 1787

misterwhite is correct with the sole exception of those few who enjoy diplomatic immunity and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The children born of diplomats who have immunity are born with immunity. For some time, Indian tribes on reservations were not considered within the territory and jurisdiction of the U.S.

The child born of an illegal alien at a detention center awaiting deportation is a natural born U.S. citizen. The child is born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States.

Unfortunately for your argument, John Bingham did not introduce the citizenship clause in the House. That portion of the 14th Amendment was introduced in the Senate by Senator Jacob Howard.

Here, John Bingham's comments did not apply to the as yet non-existent 14th Amendment. He was talking about a differently phrased provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. John Bingham spoke on March 9, 1866 and the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was not introduced until May 30, 1866 by Senator Jacob Howard.

It should be adknowledged that, in March 1866, John Bingham spoke at length in objection to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as unconstitutional.

Obviously, John Bingham was talking about some bill and not about the Fourteenth Amendment which was not even introduced for consideration until several months later. The later 14th Amendment defined as citizens at birth, i.e., natural born citizens, all who were born within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

While John Bingham is known as the father of the 14th Amendment, he neither drafted nor introduced the Citizenship Clause therein. That was the work of Jacob Howard in the Senate. The oft-cited quote of Bingham is about different text in an 1866 bill in the House, prior to the initial introduction of what would become the 14th amendment. Bingham's remarks were in opposition to the Civil Rights bill as unconstitutional.

WHAT SENATOR JACOB HOWARD SAID AS HE OFFERED THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE.

[This is what the actual author of that clause said in explanation of it. Representative Bingham was in the House. Bingham neither drafted nor offered the Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment which was offered in the Senate. Note: The Congressional Globe is the official record of that time.]

Wrong. That's an anchor baby, 14th amendment citizen. Not a natural born US citizen.

Willard M. Romney is not a total anchor baby, since his illegal alien father (Michigan governor George Romney) married a Gringa, and he was born in the US. No way is he a "natural born US citizen", either.

Natural born citizens are citizens at birth. All others become citizens at some later time via the naturalization process.

Home » Under Secretary for Management » Bureau of Administration » Office of Directives Management » FAM / FAH » Foreign Affairs Manual » 7 FAM - Consular Affairs » 7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY

Mitt Romney is a natural-born United States citizen, as are Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and everyone else born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction.

To hell with what a few lawyers who can argue any side of an issue in pursuit of thier own importance say, What did the original intent of the Constitution say.

Cruz was born in Canada. He's subject to Fidel Castro and the Kanucks. Literally, he's a British subject, with communist roots.

TED CRUZ – A CASE STUDY ON NATURAL BORN

Ted’s father and mother were not foreign diplomats living in Canada. Ted was therefore, a Native Born citizen of Canada at birth. On this basis alone, he could not possibly be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as a simple matter of legal fact.

To be honest, this was a question I had not even considered until now. Like most Americans, I had “assumed” that Ted Cruz was naturalized under U.S. Immigration laws at the time his parents left Canada and became naturalized citizens of the United States living in Texas. Under U.S. law, it is not possible for any individual to be both “Natural Born Citizen” and “Naturalized citizen.” Ted is one or the other, not both… and the same is true for every individual.

Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, to hold a seat in the U.S. Senate, one must meet the following conditions – “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”

So, the issue is not whether or not Ted Cruz has ever denounced his Canadian citizenship, as it pertains to holding a Senate seat, but rather whether or not, and when, Ted became a Naturalized citizen of the United States?

As a Native citizen of Canada, Ted would have had to naturalize to the United States at some point, at least nine years prior to seeking office in the U.S. Senate. As the son of a U.S. citizen mother, the process of naturalization for Ted would have been very simple, but it would have still required a naturalization process since he was not born in the United States, nor did his parents register him as a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth in Canada.

However, as of this writing, I have been unable to find any records of Ted or his father naturalizing to the United States from Canada. (If anyone has proof of U.S. naturalization for Rafael Edward Cruz, please send it to my email.)

This means that the question of Ted’s eligibility for the U.S. Senate is not yet answered. However, the question of whether or not Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, eligible for the Oval Office, is indeed answered.

As Natural Born is a status passed from Father to son at birth, Ted could only be a Natural Born Citizen of Cuba, as that is the citizenship held by his natural birth father at the time Ted was born in Canada.

Because his mother Eleanor held citizenship in the U.S. at the time of Ted’s birth, she could have registered Ted as a dual citizen at birth, Canada by Native birth right and citizen of the U.S. through his mother’s citizenship in the U.S. She did not register Ted as a dual citizen at birth, but rather as a Native Born Citizen of Canada alone.

Because his parents immigrated from Canada to the U.S. in 1974, they could have naturalized both Ted and his father Rafael in 1974, or sometime thereafter, making Ted a naturalized citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen. However, we have so far been unable to confirm that any such naturalization process ever happened.

No… because his father was only a legal citizen of Cuba at the time of Ted’s birth in Canada.

Is Ted a Naturalized citizen of the United States, eligible to hold a seat in the U.S. Senate, but not eligible to hold the Oval Office?

We simply do not have adequate documentation to either confirm or deny Ted’s naturalized U.S. citizenship status. But if we are able to confirm that Ted is indeed a naturalized citizen of the United States, we will have also confirmed that it is not possible for him to also be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

The issue of whether or not Ted Cruz is eligible for the Oval Office has been completely answered and the answer is no…

But the issue of Ted’s eligibility for the U.S. Senate remains open to further investigation. An update on this matter will be issued once adequate documentation can be found and confirmed.

Applying the same sound legal standards to Obama just applied to Cruz, the answer is again a resounding no…

Barack Hussein Obama was born the son of a Kenyan Father who held at no time in his life, U.S. citizenship. Obama’s birthplace is still in question, as is his mother’s identity and legal status at the time of Obama’s birth.

Like Cruz, Obama may or may not be a legal “citizen” of the United States. But like Cruz, he is absolutely not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

The lawyers are right. Cruz's mother was a US citizen, and therefore Cruz was born a citizen. He didn't have to be naturalized to become a citizen. That's what "natural born" means.

Being born on US soil has nothing to do with it, although anybody born on US soil other than the child of diplomats with immunity is also a natural born citizen, thanks to the 14th Amendment.

He published unending legal birther nonsense about Obama that was wrong. File his crap along with Dr. Orly.

This legal nonsense is all wrong. As a natural born citizen of the United States, Ted Cruz has never been naturalized and has never been eligible for naturalization.

Canadian or other foreign law does not apply to determination of U.S. citizenship at birth.

Under the inane theory that one considered a citizen by another country could not be eligible for the presidency, Iran could offer citizenship at birth to all children born to American citizens and nobody thereafter would be eligible for the presidency.

American birth citizenship is solely a matter of applicable United States law.

The mother of Ted Cruz was an American citizen at the time of his birth in 1970. According to U.S. law in effect at that time, he became a U.S. citizen at birth. Whatever other citizenship he may have been eligible for was irrelevant under U.S. law.

Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware. She graduated high school from St. Joseph's Academy in 1952. She graduated from Rice University in 1956. She was a U.S. citizen, resident in the United States for more than 10 years, at least 5 of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years.

As the mother of Ted Cruz was a U.S. citizen and met the residency requirement then in effect, Ted Cruz became a United States citizen at birth. He is a natural born citizen.

When all else fails, as a very last resort, one can read the actual applicable law.

The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

The Law of Nations and The Constitution

The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

TED CRUZ – A CASE STUDY ON NATURAL BORN

The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party