U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president
Source:
FoxNews
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... eligible-to-run-for-president/
Published: Mar 14, 2015
Author: Dan Gallo
Post Date: 2015-03-14 09:30:11 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 5708
Comments: 38
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.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30.
#1. To: cranky (#0)
So even if Obama was born in Kenya he meets the requirement. How about that? Boy, how opinion changes when it's "our" guy, huh?
Boy, how opinion changes when it's "our" guy, huh? There is a difference. Cruz's father had legal status to be in the U.S. Obama's father did not.
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. No?
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. No? 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. Cruz 2016 if you want your country back.
You're confusing "citizen" with "natural born citizen". 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".
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. It is supposed to be illegal to profit from a crime.
Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Santorum are all ineligible. 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.
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. WHAT JOHN BINGHAM SAID ON MARCH 9, 1866, SHORT EXTRACT: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332 I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him. But while this is admitted, can you declare by congressional enactment as to citizens of the United States within the States that there shall be no discrimination amang them of civil rights? 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.] http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 May 30, 1866 RECONSTRUCTION. Mr. HOWARD. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. HOWARD.] Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan will be read. The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line nine, after the words "section one," to insert: All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. So that the section will read : Mr. DOOLITTLE. I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians. I move, therefore, to amend the amendment -- I presume he will have no objection to it -- by inserting after the word "thereof" the words "excluding Indians not taxed." The amendment would then read: Mr. HOWARD. I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the "consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. = = = = =
There are no replies to Comment # 30. End Trace Mode for Comment # 30.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"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”
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
So even if Obama was born in Kenya he meets the requirement. How about that?
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
There is a difference.
Cruz's father had legal status to be in the U.S.Obama's father did not.
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
Legal status? WTF does that have to do with U.S. citizenship? When Ted Cruz was born in Canada, his father had Canadian citizenship.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
"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?"
#10. To: misterwhite (#5)
In my opinion, it's time to modify that amendment by adding the phrase "... born to a least one citizen parent".
#11. To: (#10)
#30. To: No Apologies, sneakypete, misterwhite, A K A Stone (#11)
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.
(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Has the Congress of the United States the power to pass and enforce the bill as it comes to us from the committee? Has the Congress of the United States the power to declare, as this bill does declare, in the words which I propose to strike out, that there shall be no discrimination of civil rights among citizens of the United States in any State of the United States, on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE
United States Senate SEC. 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction tho equal protection of the laws.
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.
Replies to Comment # 30.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]