U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Op-Ed Is Ted Cruz a 'natural born Citizen'? Not if you're a constitutional originalist.
Source:
LA Times
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/01/11/2746384/
Published: Jan 11, 2016
Author: Breitbart News
Post Date: 2016-01-11 12:29:50 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 2803
Comments: 28
Article II of the Constitution states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Donald Trump thinks Sen. Ted Cruz is not a “natural born Citizen” and that he is therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president. Is Trump right? Cruz was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada, to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father. As to his Article II status, it's all in how you read the Constitution. There are three leading theories of how to interpret the Constitution today. One is textualism: the Constitution means what its words say. The historical context of the words is important when a modern plain meaning is not self-evident. A second theory, adopted by many liberals, relies on a “living Constitution”: the Constitution means what is most consistent with fundamental constitutional values as applied to present circumstances. The third theory, championed by many leading conservatives, is originalism: The Constitution means what ordinary people would have understood it to mean at the time it was ratified, which is 1788. Under either a textualist or a “living Constitution” theory, Cruz is a “natural born Citizen,” eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn't. It's the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility. To an originalist, a “natural born Citizen” is a person who is a citizen of the United States under “natural” principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child's citizenship flowed from the parents' allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors. The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father's country. However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband's — much rarer then than today — could not be a “natural born Citizen” of the mother's country. That idea wasn't even considered until 1844 in Victorian England. The upshot is that to an originalist, someone like Cruz — born in a foreign country (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus soli) and to a Cuban citizen father (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus sanguinis ) — is not eligible to be president. In a textualist view of the Constitution, historical context is also important because “natural born Citizen” has no modern plain meaning and the words don't appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Textualists, by contrast to originalists, favor written statutes in mining historical context. In this case, two American laws enacted in 1784 and 1790 are applicable, along with older English statutes which use the similar words “natural born subject.” In 1784, the Maryland Legislature extended “all the Immunities, Rights and Privileges of natural born Citizen” to the Marquis de Lafayette “and his heirs Male forever.” And, in 1790, Congress passed a law stating that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” It didn't specify which parent, mother or father or both, but the background principle of jus sanguinis leads to the conclusion that it referred to American fathers. The 1790 statute, however, was not intended to address presidential eligibility. Rather, like earlier English statutes that referred to “natural born subjects,” it exempted children born abroad from the need to follow any other procedures (“to naturalize”) in order to be considered citizens. Then in 1940, Congress passed a statute dispensing with the need for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother to naturalize. Taken all together, these laws would cause a textualist to conclude that Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother in 1970, is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president. Finally, living constitutionalists would interpret “natural born Citizen” in accordance with present circumstances and social conditions. Supreme Court case law is their main source because judicial decisions reflect an accommodation of legal doctrine with contemporary reality. But the Supreme Court has never directly decided the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” Today, a living constitutionalist would likely regard the ancient, sexist patrilineal rule governing the citizenship of a child born abroad as an anachronism. To a living constitutionalist, anyone born anywhere to a U.S. citizen mother or father would qualify to run for president. People looking to the Supreme Court to settle the debate once and for all are likely to be disappointed. The federal courts have repeatedly refused to allow voters to bring lawsuits disqualifying presidential candidates on the basis of the “natural born Citizen” clause because voters don't have the proper “standing”— their alleged injury is too generalized to justify a court order of relief. But voters do have recourse: The ballot box may be the final arbiter of the constitutional meaning of the clause. In other words, if you are an originalist, vote against Cruz because he is ineligible to be president. It's a neat irony: The most conservative constitutional interpreters must find Cruz ineligible to be president; liberals must grin and bear him. Cruz himself purports to embrace originalism as the correct view of the Constitution. To be faithful to his understanding of what the Constitution means, the senator may have to disqualify himself. Thomas Lee is a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
this you love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Only if we follow the contorted 'logic' of the liberal agitprop put out by author. Thomas Lee is a pettifogging propagandist, doing his best to advance the socialist cause. -- His opinions are best ignored.
Of course, he's a natural born Canadian. According to the majority of Barthhouse Barry voters,it no longer makes any difference. Since they were the majority of the voters the last two times,they are the majority of the people who care. There are two things that bother me about Crua. One is he is from Texas,and IMHO,it should be illegal for anybody from Texas to hold national office. That's where the Bush Crime Family came from,and they represent Texas politicians. The other is he only recently gave up his Canadian citizenship,and it seems obvious to me he only did it for political expedience. IMHO,NOBODY in the US over the age of 18 is entitled to have dual citizenship. Yeah,you can have it while you are a child because you are not responsible for yourself then. Once you turn 18 you are legally responsible for yourself,and need to make a choice. If your choice is for non-US citizenship and you wish to remain here,get a damn visa,just like the rest of the foreigners. 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) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Nor did it matter that their guy never put America's best interest first. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
The world, fortunately, is moving in exactly the opposite direction. We now travel all over the world, and live and work in many places. Why should a child born with two nationalities have to renounce one? To please folks who think like you? Their family ties make them citizens of both, and participants in both cultures. We are not forced to choose between our parents. Nor should we be forced to cut off half of our cultural heritage.
The Bush family immigrated from Connecticut to Texas to get oil money. Texas os loaded with such immigrants that have little allegiance to the historical culture of Texas.
Let's see. American citizen mother. Cuban citizen father. Child born in Canada. Why can't the father claim the child is Cuban? Why isn't the child Cuban? Why does the child have to be American by default?
Why? To run for President of one of those countries.
Teddy renounced his Canadian citizenship, but not his Cuban citizenship. He's still eligible for el Predidente of Cuba. Viva la Cruz! To be President of France one does not have to be born there. One merely needs to be a French citizen and win the Electoral College. To be President of the United States, one needs to be born an American citizen. Cruz was. Obama was if he was born in Hawaii. If he was born in Kenya, then under the laws of the time of his birth, he wasn't a citizen then. The law changed later. The question of retroactivity of "natural born" status has never been adjudicated.
Nope. You have to be a natural born citizen.
This has done been settled. One parent be citizen is all it takes. Obummer put it to bed. Cry foul all you want but ussc put it to rest when they Okay'd Obummer. I would go as far as any one not born of test tube! In a few years it's any one that is a communist.
That's a different issue. The question is the definition of a natural born citizen.
Nope,all they cared about was the free cell phones and all the other "free stuff" they thought they were going to get with a "brutha" in charge. And on the flip side,the neo-cons/globalists/fascists only care about getting government contracts and "free" money in the form of grants. At the two groups together and the number of people that give a damn are a very tiny minority of the population. 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) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
So what? There is a thing people use called "visas". Why should a child born with two nationalities have to renounce one? To please folks who think like you? Because you can't be loyal to more than one country. Pick your country and put your ass where your heart is. In your case,that would be Vatican City. 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) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Nice try at a cheap shot. If Cruz possesses a Cuban passport,please either produce the proof or STFU about it. 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) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
As a Cuban citizen he doesn't need a passport there. He didn't need a Canadian passport to be a citizen there either. That was the case until he renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2013. Because you can't have two masters. If you have two masters you will love one and hate the other. I would add you will be trusted by neither. But we know you don't care about the constitution and you consider it an evil document. So yours is not the constitutional position but the position of Vic.
IOW,there is no proof at all he is a Cuban citizen. 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) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
I don't know Cuban law, but an anchor baby born to Mexican illegal aliens in the US is a Mexican citizen. I'm guessing that Cuba is the same. No. I don't have to. Once upon a time the law was such that one did. It was the law of a certain time and mindset. The world has become more international now, and that mindset is no longer the majority. My mindset is. There are more of us than you, so our way is now the law. You want your way to be the law, but it isn't. And it isn't going to be. Dual citizenship makes a lot of sense for enough people that it's the law now. "When your mother and your father fight, you do not want one to kill the other. You want them to stop fighting." - Testimony of a Japanese-American internee in response to a question about loyalty at Manazanar.
Government is your master? It isn't mine.
There are more of us than you, so our way is now the law. Mob rule. No real surprise you support it. You are a herd member. 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) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
HorseHillary. You are a rabid Catholic,and Catholicism is nothing more than a wannabe form of world government. 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) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Testing
I'll settle this :-] Crudz has NO RIGHT to run for president because his first loyalty is to a hostile foreign country, Israel. He told a group of Christians “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you” -- what more kooky treason could there possibly be, what more blatant show of mental illness? In addition he is a sickening, hateful phony -- a warmongering maniac that's clearly fit only for a funny farm at best. But there's more. Supposedly his mother was born in Delaware, but nobody can find proof. Here's an alleged birth certificate, but why is her name written in a totally different hand than the rest of it..... twice? A persistent popup comes up. If you click to sign up it goes to another screen which you can instantly close.
I see your message.
is
the
united states
of
ebonics
can
start
voter
registrating
your pets now
boris
#2. To: cranky (#0)
It's a neat irony: The most conservative constitutional interpreters must find Cruz ineligible to be president.
Cruz himself purports to embrace originalism as the correct view of the Constitution. To be faithful to his understanding of what the Constitution means, the senator may have to disqualify himself. --- Thomas Lee is a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School.
#3. To: cranky, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#0)
Is Ted Cruz a 'natural born Citizen'?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#4. To: cranky (#0)
#5. To: sneakypete (#4)
According to the majority of Barthhouse Barry voters,it no longer makes any difference.
#6. To: sneakypete (#4)
IMHO,NOBODY in the US over the age of 18 is entitled to have dual citizenship.
#7. To: sneakypete (#4)
One is he is from Texas,and IMHO,it should be illegal for anybody from Texas to hold national office. That's where the Bush Crime Family came from,and they represent Texas politicians.
#8. To: cranky (#0)
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
"Why should a child born with two nationalities have to renounce one?"
#10. To: misterwhite, el Presidente Cruz, (#8)
Why can't the father claim the child is Cuban? Why isn't the child Cuban?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#11. To: misterwhite (#9)
Why? To run for President of one of those countries.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
"to be President of the United States, one needs to be born an American citizen."
#13. To: cranky (#0)
#14. To: Justified (#13)
"One parent be citizen is all it takes."
#15. To: cranky (#5)
(Edited)
Nor did it matter that their guy never put America's best interest first.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
We now travel all over the world, and live and work in many places.
#17. To: hondo68 (#10)
Teddy renounced his Canadian citizenship, but not his Cuban citizenship.
#18. To: sneakypete (#17)
If Cruz possesses a Cuban passport
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
Why should a child born with two nationalities have to renounce one?
#20. To: hondo68 (#18)
As a Cuban citizen he doesn't need a passport there.
#21. To: sneakypete (#20)
there is no proof at all he is a Cuban citizen.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#22. To: sneakypete (#16)
Because you can't be loyal to more than one country. Pick your country and put your ass where your heart is.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Because you can't have two masters.
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
My mindset is.
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
Government is your master? It isn't mine.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
(Edited)
#27. To: All (#26)
#28. To: CYBER WAR (#26)
Testing.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]