politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Ted Cruz is Not Eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 20, 2016
Author: Einer Elhauge
Post Date: 2016-04-06 15:24:09 by lana
Keywords: None
Views: 10801
Comments: 95
Ted Cruz is Not Eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz's case squares with the actual meaning of "natural-born" Einer Elhauge Topics: Ted Cruz, Elections 2016, Editor's Picks, Donald Trump, Natural-born citizen, Can Ted Cruz be president, Can Ted Cruz run for president, constitution, aol_on, Business News, Life News, News, Politics News (Credit: Reuters/Chris Keane) The argument that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president initially looked strong, then probable but uncertain. But closer examination shows it is surprisingly weak. The constitutional text provides that a president, unlike other elected officials, must be a “natural born citizen.” This language could not mean anyone born a citizen or else the text would have simply stated “born citizen.” The word “natural” is a limiting qualifier that indicates only some persons who are born citizens qualify. Moreover, when the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant something not created by statute, as with natural rights or natural law, which instead were part of the common law. At common law, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military. The argument for Cruz rests on some old statutes, namely English statutes enacted before the U.S. Constitution and U.S. statutes enacted just after. But neither turns out to be persuasive on closer examination. The English statutes extended natural-born status to persons born abroad whose father was any English subject, rather than only a public official. Some argue that the constitutional framers meant to refer to this statutory redefinition of the term “natural born.” But that position contradicts the ordinary meaning that the word “natural” indicates a non-statutory meaning. Moreover, Prof. Mary McManamon offers convincing evidence that the Framers meant the common law meaning. James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage. In any event, Cruz’s father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born (again unlike McCain), so these English statutes do not help Cruz. The U.S. statute in 1790 provided that “children of citizens of the United States” that are born abroad “shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” This has been thought the strongest evidence for Cruz’s position since so many 1790 congressmen had participated in the Constitutional Convention. However, this statute did not say these children were natural-born citizens. It instead carefully said they “shall be considered as” natural-born citizens, suggesting that Congress thought they were not natural-born citizens but should be treated as such. Indeed, there would have been no need to pass the statute if they were already understood to be natural-born citizens. Further, when this Act was reconsidered in a few years, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
#24. To: lana, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#0)
Canadian, Cuban, and American. Throw a dart at a map of north america, and the odds are that Teddy is a "natural born citizen" there. If you don't have a clue what Natural Born Citizen means. If he's a natural born citizen of the US because of his American mother, he's also a natural born citizen of Cuba because of his Cuban father? He can run for el presidente of Cuba too!
That depends entirely on Cuban law. If his mother was an American citizen and the law of the USA at the time he was born said that he was an American citizen, then he was natural born. Being born on a given piece of dirt is irrelevant - unless it's THIS dirt, THEN, because of the 14th Amendment, he'd be natural born even if BOTH of his parents were foreign citizens (unless they had diplomatic immunity and were not, as a result, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States").
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) excluded the children of invaders from automatic citizenship. Of course, the Rats and the GOPe will never treat the invaders as invaders,
Illegal aliens are not invaders. They're illegal immigrants. You don't employ invaders in businesses and homes. But look, it's easy to get the answers to all of these things: litigate them, and send them up to the Supreme Court. Who wins the election will determine who controls the court, and how the court answers. So, it's Hillary or Trump who will decide. You pretty much know how Hillary will decide most things, and Trump.
2. it's easy to get the answers to all of these things: litigate them, and send them up to the Supreme Court. 1. Criminals do. It's illegal to employ them in businesses and homes. 2. Nope. It's a political question. Congress could and should declare them invaders.
It's a political question. Congress could and should declare them invaders. There are insufficient votes in Congress to do anything like that. Congress is moving in the opposite direction.
Yep. Too many cucks.
There are no replies to Comment # 40. End Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#30. To: hondo68 (#24)
f he's a natural born citizen of the US because of his American mother, he's also a natural born citizen of Cuba because of his Cuban father?
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
because of the 14th Amendment, he'd be natural born even if BOTH of his parents were foreign citizens
#36. To: Roscoe (#31)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) excluded the children of invaders from automatic citizenship. Of course, the Rats and the GOPe will never treat the invaders as invaders,
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
1. You don't employ invaders in businesses and homes.
#39. To: Roscoe (#38)
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
There are insufficient votes in Congress to do anything like that.
Replies to Comment # 40.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]