http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429...thor&tid=900151

Zitat

---

Senator Ted Cruz is wise to laugh off Donald Trump’s intimation that his constitutional qualifications to serve as president may be debatable.

The suggestion is sufficiently frivolous that even Trump, who is apt to utter most anything that pops into his head, stops short of claiming that Cruz is not a “natural born citizen,” the Constitution’s requirement. Trump is merely saying that because Cruz was born in Canada (of an American citizen mother and a Cuban father who had been a long-time legal resident of the United States), some political opponents might file lawsuits that could spur years of litigation over Cruz’s eligibility.

The answer to that “problem” is: So what? Top government officials get sued all the time. It comes with the territory and has no impact on the performance of their duties. Indeed, dozens of lawsuits have been brought seeking to challenge President Obama’s eligibility. They have been litigated for years and have neither distracted him nor created public doubt about his legitimacy. In fact, most of them are peremptorily dismissed.

On substance, Trump’s self-serving suggestion about his rival is specious. (Disclosure: I support Cruz.)

A “natural born citizen” is a person who has citizenship status at birth rather than as a result of a legal naturalization process after birth. As I explained in Faithless Execution (in connection with the term “high crimes and misdemeanors”), the meaning of many terms of art used in the Constitution was informed by British law, with which the framers were intimately familiar. “Natural born citizen” is no exception.

In a 2015 Harvard Law Review article, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen,” Neal Katyal and Paul Clement (former Solicitors-General in, respectively, the Obama and George W. Bush admininistrations), explain that British law explicitly used the term “natural born” to describe children born outside the British empire to parents who were subjects of the Crown. Such children were deemed British by birth, “Subjects … to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.”

The Constitution’s invocation of “natural born citizen” incorporates this principle of citizenship derived from parentage. That this is the original meaning is obvious from the Naturalization Act of 1790. It was enacted by the first Congress, which included several of the framers, and signed into law by President George Washington, who had presided over the constitutional convention. The Act provided that children born outside the United States to American citizens were “natural born” U.S. citizens at birth, “Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

As we shall see presently, Congress later changed the law, making it easier for one American-citizen parent to pass birthright citizenship to his or her child, regardless of whether the non-American parent ever resided in the United States. But even if the more demanding 1790 law had remained in effect, Cruz would still be a natural born citizen. His mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson, is an American citizen born in Delaware; his native-Cuban father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was a legal resident of the U.S. for many years before Ted was born. (Rafael came to the U.S. on a student visa in 1957, attended the University of Texas, and received political asylum and obtained a green card once the visa expired. He ultimately became a naturalized American citizen in 2005.)

As Katyal and Clement observe, changes in the law after 1790 clarified that children born of a single American-citizen parent outside the United States are natural born American citizens “subject to certain residency requirements.” Those residency requirements have changed over time.

Under the law in effect when Cruz was born in 1970 (i.e., statutes applying to people born between 1952 and 1986), the requirement was that, at the time of birth, the American citizen parent had to have resided in the U.S. for ten years, including five years after the age of fourteen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, easily met that requirement: she was in her mid-thirties when Ted was born and had spent most of her life in the U.S., including graduating from Rice University with a math degree that led to employment in Houston as a computer programmer at Shell Oil.

As Katyal and Clement point out, there is nothing new in this principle that presidential eligibility is derived from parental citizenship. John McCain, the GOP’s 2008 candidate, was born in the Panama Canal Zone at a time when there were questions about its sovereign status. Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona before it became a state, and George Romney, who unsuccessfully sought the same party’s nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico. In each instance, the candidate was a natural born citizen by virtue of parentage, so his eligibility was not open to credible dispute.

So The Donald needn’t fear. Like President Obama, President Cruz would spend more time working on which turkeys to pardon on Thanksgiving than on frivolous legal challenges to his eligibility. Ted Cruz is a natural born U.S. citizen in accordance with (a) the original understanding of that term, (b) the first Congress’s more demanding standard that took both parents into account, and (c) the more lax statutory standard that actually applied when he was born, under which birthright citizenship is derived from a single American-citizen parent.

---

I don't know, Frank. The well-known Constitutional Scholar, John McCain (aka McClown) has weighed in. And given how Senator McClown is ALWAYS so supportive of fellow republicans (and critical of democrats), we can be assured his point of view is genuine and he has no ulterior motives.

(either that, or he's vying for his weekly "bash the conservative" slot on Meet The Press to continue)

Zitat

---

When it comes to questions about his citizenship, Ted Cruz isn't getting a heckuva lot of help from some of his fellow Republicans — including John McCain, for example.

The 2008 Republican presidential nominee — and past target of Cruz criticism — said Wednesday that he doesn't know whether the Canada-born Texas senator is eligible for the U.S. presidency.

“I don’t know the answer to that,” McCain told an Arizona-based radio show. “I know it came up in my race because I was born in Panama, but I was born in the Canal Zone which is a territory. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory when he ran in 1964.”

Republican front-runner Donald Trump and others have raised similar questions about Cruz, who is moving up in GOP polls and leads in Iowa.

Cruz and allies have said he is eligible for the presidency because his mother's status as an American citizen made him a citizen upon his birth. Cruz has also buttressed his case by citing the examples of McCain and Goldwater.

In his radio interview, McCain said his situation was different because he was born on a U.S. military base.

“That’s different from being born on foreign soil, so I think there is a question," McCain said. "I am not a constitutional scholar on that, but I think it’s worth looking into. I don’t think it’s illegitimate to look into it.”

Of course, relations between McCain and Cruz have never been warm and fuzzy.

Elected on a wave of Tea Party backing in 2012, Cruz has criticized McCain as a pillar of a failed Republican establishment.

McCain has criticized Cruz and other Tea Party members for their firebrand tactics, once memorably denouncing them as "wacko birds."

---

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit...nship/78404164/

Sigh. You do realize that National Review carries no weight of law? And you do realize that constitutional scholars vary in their opinions on the natural born controversy and its correct interpretation? Right??

I've already given you the Cruz isn't eligible viewpoint from Attorney Puzo, here's another group:

Constitution Society

While I do not agree with them on every single point, they do raise valid issues.

Now from two people who happen to agree with you and Harvard Law, and National Review (I do like to be fair). First:

Breitbart: The Cultural and Media Reality of the Cruz Crisis

Some excerpts:

Zitat

---

First off, as cut and dried as Cruz’s citizenship issue might be to Levin, the trip to the “cut and dried” is objectively murky. My colleague Joel Pollak, who attended Harvard Law School, lays it all out here. Pollak doesn’t question Cruz’s eligibility; he does, however, understand modern American politics and lays out a convincing case as to why the issue could eventually become a problem for Cruz.

As of right now, Ted Cruz has a legitimate chance at winning the Republican nomination, and because Levin is 100% correct when he says “liberals love this stuff,” my question is a simple one:

As “stupid” as this issue may be for Levin, do we want to litigate it in front of the American people today or three weeks before the general election, when Cruz is either our presidential or vice-presidential nominee? Because you have to be wearing blinders to believe that will not happen.

If Cruz is on the ticket, you can bet the farm that Democrats and the DC Media have already gamed out an October Surprise centered on creating a political storm over Cruz’s natural born status. Moreover, all it would take is one federal judge to hurl a massive monkey into that wrench.

Exhibit A: The Clintons are the Original Birthers. If they went after Obama over this issue, who doesn’t believe they will go after Cruz?

Exhibit B: High-profile Democrats are already vowing to sue over Cruz’s eligibility.

Exhibit C: The White House proved yesterday that at the highest levels, Democrats are fully prepared to make this an issue.

Exhibit D: We’re still waiting for independent verification that Cruz’s mother was indeed an American citizen. Wouldn’t now be a good time to drop that shoe, however it falls?

Even if you side 100% with Levin on this issue, tell me how unrealistic it is to imagine a federal judge ruling on October 21, 2016, that Ted Cruz’s citizenship status is questionable. Cruz is running for president. We can’t just take his word on this.

---

All points I myself have raised several times.

Second:

Breitbart: Law Prof: Ted Cruz Eligible but Good Faith Doubts

Excerpts:

Zitat

---

Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson, who also founded the highly respected Legal Insurrection blog, has addressed the question of Sen. Ted Cruz’s eligibility for the presidency, along with several other candidates.

In his analysis, first published in 2013 and highlighted again today, he concludes that Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal were all eligible–but that questions may be “legitimate,” since there was so little judicial precedent on the issue.

---

I agree there are legitimate questions but I disagree there is little judicial precedent and I highly disagree with the rest of his statements (as do other law professors and constitutional scholars such as Herb Titus).

There is judicial precedent, its just being ignored in favor of political expediency.

And there is a definite and clear distinction in our founding documents along with 19th century legal jurisprudence that the meaning of "natural born" is separate from "citizen at birth". All the confusion (or rewriting of the definition) is coming from the viewpoint that both are the same which in my view is utterly ridiculous. This idea puts our country into great national security risks and could in no way be what the founders intended which is why this re-interpretation is utterly absurd!! (The pitfalls of which are so clearly illustrated in this little gem of a story).

All of this has been done for the sake of political agenda, rather than what is right for the country. I also warned back in 2008 if Obama and his eligibility problems were not addressed by Congress (which it wasn't) that it would open up a floodgate of future ineligible candidates, and I was right.

To quote Levin with a minor change, "I don't have to agree with Levin or Frank Cannon" on this issue. I have legitimate questions which so far have not been answered to my satisfaction by those who equate natural born as being the same thing as citizen at birth. They are clearly not.

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #2

---

I don't know, Frank. The well-known Constitutional Scholar, John McCain (aka McClown) has weighed in. And given how Senator McClown is ALWAYS so supportive of fellow republicans (and critical of democrats), we can be assured his point of view is genuine and he has no ulterior motives.

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #3

---

Sigh. You do realize that National Review carries no weight of law?

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #6

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #3

---

Sigh. You do realize that National Review carries no weight of law?

---

No, but the Lawyer and former US Attorney writing the piece does.

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #7

---

Since two of my sources are SCOTUS rulings and a Congressional ruling dating to 1866 defining the "natural born" definition, they do have the weight of law.

P.S. Read the link algernon posted above.

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #8

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #7

---

Since two of my sources are SCOTUS rulings and a Congressional ruling dating to 1866 defining the "natural born" definition, they do have the weight of law.

P.S. Read the link algernon posted above.

---

Is this the same SCOTUS that gave us Dred Scott v. Sandford, Korematsu v. U.S., Plessy v. Ferguson, Kelo v. New London, Griswold v. Connecticut to name a few? Thanks but I will pass. Up until recently, if you were an American citizen that wasn't naturalized, you could be President. The 1790 act and the amendment 4 years later, by CONGRESS and signed by President Washington ends all debate.

---

Zitat

---

and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.

---

Did you catch that Frank, the 1790 version said "shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States." The 1795 amended act removed the words natural born and changed it to mere citizen. This following a letter by John Jay to Washington whereby he was concerned that citizens born on foreign soil would be considered natural born. Documents do matter.

Another hint: Both Acts as worded make Cruz ineligible since his father was never a citizen nor was he a resident of the U.S. at the time of Cruz's birth. Try again Frank.