So says CBS News Chief White House Correspondent, Major Garrett. Backstage before a rally Tuesday night (Jan. 5) Trump said that legal challenges to Cruz’ eligibility by Democrats could tie him up in court for years. Trump:
People are worried that if he weren’t born in this country which he wasn’t, he was born in Canada, the problem is that if the Democrats put in a lawsuit, the lawsuit could take years to resolve. How do you have a candidate where there’s something over the head of the party and that individual?
Anyone familiar with the 226 Obama eligibility lawsuits, which did go on for years, could observe that such things are negligible. Cruz in reply Tweeted his response by embedding a video of Fonzie jumping the shark in the TV series Happy Days.
My response to @realDonaldTrump calling into question my natural-born citizenship? https://t.co/gWfAHznlCY
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) January 5, 2016
This latest by Trump may spark another round of Cruz eligibility attention by the Media. NBC responded with an article titled “Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen? Ask the Founders.” The article sports photos of Chester Arthur, and Barry Goldwater.
Update:
Trump has repeated similar statements to the Washington Post and one with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. See links following for details. The Washington Post writes exactly how I look at this ploy:
Trump knows, of course, that the very insinuation that Cruz, who has passed Trump in Iowa polling, might be a risky nominee will raise doubts for some Republicans who were moving the Texas senator’s way. Trump benefits from the insinuation without having to own it in any meaningful way.
Update 2:
Oh no! John McCain goes birther! On the Chris Merrill Show, reports the Washington Post:
“I don’t know the answer to that,” McCain said on the “Chris Merrill Show” on Wednesday. “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.”
Read more:
- Donald Trump Goes ‘Birther’ on Ted Cruz – NPR
- Donald Trump’s brilliant Ted Cruz birther strategy – Washington Post
- Trump goes birther on Cruz – Fox News
- ‘Ironic’ If Ted Cruz Nominated After Obama Birther Debate, White House Says – ABC News
- Birther schadenfreude? White House mocks Cruz birthplace controversy – USA Today
- John McCain’s cold-blooded revenge on Ted Cruz – Washington Post
Ted Cruz is a joke who thinks that the American people are too dumb to see right through him.
I was listening to Cruz on the radio yesterday, Hannity I believe, not knowing it was him when I said to my husband, “That guy is an idiot.”
The next thing I heard was the radio host saying, “That was Ted Cruz.”
Note: The first video says it is banned in my area so I am unable to watch it.
As for the second video, what the hell is Cruz smoking?
Trump2016!
Go away, you stupid woman.
Amen. to that. I wouldn’t mind if both NO and CRJ were given a time out. IMO neither of them are here to engage in honest discussion.
I’m just waiting for her to retcon Trump into her stories and claim she was married to him.
The French have a way with words.
While I certainly wouldn’t object (or really care) if they were given a time out, I would point out that no birther who has ever commented here has been (or ever will be) willing and able to engage in honest discussion. If they were, it would necessarily result in their giving up birtherism.
I do have to say that Rafael’s “jumping the shark” tweet was a clever response. It will be interesting to see how this plays out: will it hurt Rafael, hurt Trump, or just further prove the inanity and ignorance of the right wing?
Try the link at top of the article.
This is why God created mouse wheels.
Cruz responds:
“Look, as a legal matter the question is quite straightforward,” the Texas senator told reporters in Iowa. “It’s settled law that the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen. People will continue to make political noise about it, but as a legal matter it’s quite straightforward.”
“I would note that it has occurred many times in history,” Cruz said, adducing Arizona Sen. John McCain; Mitt Romney’s father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney; and former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater. “Actually, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before Arizona was a state, and yet he was a natural-born citizen because his parents were citizens,” Cruz continued.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-trump-citizenship-217408
Both my grandmother and my great-grandmother kept up their appearances (usually for church) until their 80’s and 90’s. I really don’t see a problem with his hair and I don’t understand why people focus on it so much.
My hair should be gray.
Is it?
Oh, hell no.
Now, somebody tell Jamie Lee Curtis to do something with hers, pleeze!
The article has been corrected to say that Trump made the remark on the 5th, not the 4th. I also removed the video link, which stopped working shortly after I added it. Right now, it is still possible to view the video on the lower right corner or the CBS article I linked to.
I had heard the term and knew that it referred to the stunt on Happy Days and generally what it meant; however, seeing it in this context (and reading up on it) has greatly enhanced my understanding of the term, and I agree with you that Cruz’ response was clever.
Now I’m thinking how much of birtherism is “jumping the shark.”
What do your grandparents have to do with Trump’s hairpiece? Unless you’re now claiming you’re related to Trump as well.
See NBC news article link added to story above.
I look forward to Cruz citing the holding that overrides the dicta in Wong Kim Ark that says they’re “naturalized”.
But I’m not holding my breath…
@Donna [ Arizona Sen. John McCain; Mitt Romney’s father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney; and former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater]
I don’t recall any of those as U.S. President- Thank God. Goldwater was so weak he only carried 4 States. Romney was a shapeshifter on policy and lost a lead for the nomination to his party, and McCain if he had won was on the precipice of losing the Office (with that exact challenge Trump was asserting could happen with Cruz), by Cody Robert Judy whose Law Suit was only dismissed [afer] McCain’s loss.
The really sad thing about both Ted Cruz’s assertions that he could get over the Constitution [natural born Citizen] clause as easily as The Fonz in a Happy Days water-skied-jumped stunt over the shark and Hillary Clinton’s idea that she can clear the Investigation that officials say would cause an all out FBI massive revolt the Attorney General Loretta Lynch would not survive in if she refuses to prosecute it, is they are both predicated on what they believe they can get away with in political roguishness rather than a genuine gravitas.
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2016/01/breaking-report-off-beaten-path-to.html?m=1
[ Slartibartfast January 6, 2016 at 12:30 pm (Quote) #
While I certainly wouldn’t object (or really care) if they were given a time out, I would point out that no birther who has ever commented here has been (or ever will be) willing and able to engage in honest discussion]
You could say the Anti-Birthers biggest fear is actually seeing the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress consider in a [REAL HEARING] what would necessarily be a loss of all of their Fraudulent Wins or Semi-Pro plastic trophies for 4th Place.
There were not any serious eligibility challenges to those candidates. And, yes, Judy’s failure in Nevada was not a serious challenge.
Which is Cruz’s point: None of those born-“abroad” (counting the Arizona Territory as “abroad”) candidates were seriously challenged, so there’s no reason to challenge him (or think there will be serious challenges).
“Could,” as usual, is doing all the work there: Judy continues to not understand that anti-birthers don’t fear hearings; rather, they are a waste of precious resources.
You could say that (and obviously you did), but you’d be wrong. Not that that’s anything new. There is a prominent anti-birther who believes he can get the issue of Rafael Cruz’s eligibility adjudicated and thinks he has a chance of getting him declared ineligible. All it would take is a real candidate (i.e. one of Cruz’s primary opponents) and $250,000. Surely that is a small price for the certainty you claim to want, right?
Cruz said that Goldwater was a natural born citizen because his parents were US Citizens. I would argue that someone born in the Arizona territory is a natural born citizen, no matter who their parents were.
I did some preliminary research that found that citizens of the Arizona Territory were also citizens of the United States. For example, there was a statute saying “That is is hereby established and shall be in the County of Mohave, Territory of Arizona, a County Court, and for said Court a County Judge, who shall be an attorney and counsellor at law, and shall be a citizen of the United States and of this Territory…”
Coincidentally, Jon Hein is credited with coining the phrase “jump the shark” while John Hein wrote a paper, “Born in the U.S.A., but not natural born: How Congressional Territorial Policy Bars Native-Born Puerto Ricans from the Presidency.”
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=jcl
IIRC, those born in the Hawaii Territory were also U.S. citizens.
As for those born in territories, Vice President Curtis was born in the Kansas Territory. (And I am not sure his mother, a Native American, was a U.S. citizen at the time of Curtis’ birth.) And, of course, Vice President Gore wasn’t born in a U.S. state either (he was born in D.C.).
Also, Cruz did not mention Lowell Weicker, the Paris-born 1980 Republican candidate.
I think that shark has already been jumped and discussed previously as there were several actual candidates born in Indian and territorial lands who ran and were elected. I don’t have the actual post to hand, but it has been posted before on this topic. And FWIW, I would have said, too also, that Goldwater was a NBC because he was born within US territory and under US jurisdiction, and that his parents were irrelevant to the matter other than being the cause of it. He, in common with the lady whose case is always misquoted, was a citizen because he was born within the jurisdiction of the US.
She did that already, not claiming to be married to him, but talking about how Trump allegedly ran into her husband and managed to talk to him for a long time supposedly trying to get info from him. Now she wants to tie his family with Cruz and/or Escobar. There’s nobody safe from her CT’s and lies.
I agree with your conclusion, however, this part of the argument says nothing about the Judge being born in Arizona.
The judge might have been born in say, Savannah Georgia to a Virginian and French/Canadian parents who lived in adultery.
Of course my suggestion was only a Governor and the first Republican Candidate for President, not a Territorial Judge.
Ann Coulter has jumped the shark!!!
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
“Same lawyers who said anchor babies are in the Constitution now tell us being born outside U.S to 1 American parent = natural born citizen.”
“NYT: Cruz was born outside the U.S. to 1 American parent: “Under the Constitution this makes him a ‘natural born citizen.’” Absolutely false”
When’s the next pub debate? Pass the popcorn, birthers are making a comeback!!!
Slartibartfast [January 6, 2016 at 5:20 pm (Quote) # All it would take is a real candidate (i.e. one of Cruz’s primary opponents) and $250,000. ]
Thank you for recognizing at least the value of “Standing” and Support (Cash-For-Justice) the SCOTUS seems to have caved to.
Remember the good ole days of Justice for All in the Pledge of Allegiance? That’s a brain-freeze-head-ache for our next generation.
You now also can imagine my service of Value.
@Doc [and shall be a citizen of the United States and of this Territory…”]
That old-dog trick again [Citizen]= [natural born Citizen]?
Not falling for it Doc. Distiction between the Federal Officea Representative, Senator, President, in the Constitution has to be accounted [Reasonable].
You make it unreasonable with such assertions.
I’ve airways felt Goldwater not eligible based on Jurisdiction of the [United] States.
You recall that nasty little [Tucker Act] that prohibited Utah from becoming a State of the Union? I’ve always used that little gem at parcels that like to manipulate their Law so they can have it both ways at their convenience.
“Hell no, no one can be a U.S. President from a loathsome territory when they will not suck up to doing the things required to be a State. Are you out of your mind!” (?)
Now, Doc of you meet me half way and denounce The EDMUND TUCKER Act as a tyranical piece of sh*t, embrace polygamy, I might take a chance on believing you’re serious. Short of that, I think your wanting it both ways at your convenience and call you on it. That’s the great sign of hypocracy.
Territories like Army based are not United States and what is allowed in jurisdiction of one is not allowed in another. So that’s just Sh*t off hog-wash. Which was the Reason I sued McCain.
@Jim [ “Same lawyers who said anchor babies are in the Constitution now tell us being born outside U.S to 1 American parent = natural born citizen.”]
[When’s the next pub debate? Pass the popcorn, birthers are making a comeback!!!]
@Jim, I’m going to stay here a little longer. Don’t beam me up.
Ann Coulter’s Legs⚡ could be the KEY to this whole thing. I’m not sure I could sit across from that woman and keep my focus trained on her eyes either.
Anti- Birthers are screwed⚡ if I get her vote! ❤
Too Juicy not to include. McCain goes Birther on Ted Cruz
“I think there is a question. I’m 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,” McCain said.”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/ted-cruz-birthplace-john-mccain/index.html
Cruz has a new best pal:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/01/06/watch-ted-cruz-pushes-birthers-bizarre-star-wars-video-supporting-his-presidential-run/
Trump is just jealous, obverously.
Congressman Readies Ted Cruz Eligibility Lawsuit With Eye on Mom
Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, an attorney and Democratic Senate candidate, tells U.S. News he will file a lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility should he overtake Trump and win the nomination — a scenario that’s at least plausible with the senator besting Trump in some Iowa polls.
“If he’s not qualified to be president according to our Constitution, then he certainly should not serve,” Grayson says, poring over his notes for the possible lawsuit. “There’s quite a lot of stuff here.”
And then there’s Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh Wilson.
Grayson says Wilson may have forfeited her U.S. citizenship by taking a Canadian oath of citizenship, and that he’s seen no evidence she actually was born in the U.S.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-06/congressman-readies-ted-cruz-eligibility-lawsuit-with-eye-on-mom
Action adventure continues.. Could Ted Cruz Parents both be Canadian?
http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/01/06/report-congressman-says-cruzs-mother-may-not-be-a-u-s-citizen/
To some Anti Birthers who may still be wondering why BORN in the U.S. to Citizen Parents is a WALL of National Security safety..
Imagine for a minute Cruz’s mother betraying the U.S. by denouncing her U.S. Citizenship for a Foreign State.
Then you have effectively set your American President awash in such diluted and polluted horse crap as to STAGE the whole Presidency of the U.S. on a LIE .. On FRAUD..
You have smothered yourselves in FOREIGN FECES and embraced what you normally would have run from. Take a good look in the mirror and tell yourselves if Cruz’s mother disavowed the U.S.,as a Traitor how proud you are of your un- AMERICAN President.
This is just one example of how when you leave the BASE of the TREE 🌳 Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents you find yourself advocating for Foreigners Rule.
Why don’t you just come out in the Open and state you no longer are concerned about the qualifications of President being fullfilled and ANYONE can run and become US President in the whole world?
Are you really going to take Cruz’s Presidency away if you find out his mother is a Traitor : a Foreign Citizen? Or.. As seems much more your style. Just cough up one more layer of.. Well, guess that’s ok?
You know what prevents all those God Damned lies from the start?
Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
That’s what does , and keeps you from being a fool.
Unsurprisingly you have misunderstood once again. Standing is a Constitutional merit of any case. If you don’t have it, the Constitution doesn’t empower the court to sit in judgement. You respect the Constitution, right?
As for the money, if you had the skills necessary, you wouldn’t need the money (beyond filing fees and if you had the skill you could probably file a successful IFP application if necessary as well). However, being incompetent, you don’t have the necessary skills and to hire someone who does (and has the history to prove it) would require paying them—otherwise they would have no reason to help you. I thought conservatives like you believed in capitalism.
Yes 😉 (They’re not mutually exclusive, y’know).
Cruz will take a tiny hit for being flippant about a serious issue, but get a bigger boost because most of his supporters get a warm feeling of false nostalgia from Happy Days.
Trump will take a tiny hit because some birthers will be reminded that he’s still not going after The Usurper™, but also get a small boost because others will get a warm feeling of false hope that he eventually will.
And everyone else will get yet another reminder that the Official Vehicle of the GOP is the clown car.
Me, too. But I had never seen the actual footage before. In my imagination, it was more over the top than it actually was (I thought that, within the story, it was some kind of chance incident, not a planned stunt with an audience).
Obviously not, because it sure as hell hasn’t kept you from being one.
And an increasingly vile fool, to boot.
I thought about rebutting some of your nonsense, but you’ve convinced me that you’re really not worth the trouble.
As pointed out to you a zillion times, this is pure rubbish from your diseased mind.
I don’t know why I even bother, but here we go again:
When James Madison was offered French citizenship (along with a few others) in 1791, it became indeed an issue. James Monroe opposed it, for sentiments not entirely unlike what you express, while Thomas Paine was in favor of it.
In the end, in 1793, Madison decided to accept and wrote a letter to that effect, but sent it to then-President Thomas Jefferson, asking him to forward it to the French authorities, but only if he agreed that this posed no conflict.
A month later, Jefferson did indeed forward the letter, and also wrote back to Madison to confirm his agreement.
Later, of course, Madison succeeded to Jefferson as president, becoming in effect the first post-English dual citizen in your history.
I honestly don’t know what is the most appalling here: your utter ignorance of American history; your stubborn refusal to accept said history, or your vile and moronic xenophobia.
Regarding the latter, I think I’ll leave the last word to Madison who wrote in his letter to the French Minister:
“In the catalogue of sublime truths and precious sentiments recorded in the revolution of France, none is more to be admired, than the renunciation of those prejudices which have perverted the artificial boundaries of nations into exclusions of the philanthropy which ought to cement the whole into one great family.”
Umm no. Let’s not imagine it since it is pretty much American principles that we don’t punish the children for a parents actions. So if a parent renounced right now it still wouldn’t affect Cruz.
Judy’s inability to follow directions does not mean he was denied justice.
Judy continues to mispresent others’ arguments, as no one has said that all citizens are natural-born citizens.
Judy may believe whatever he wishes; his beliefs, however, are his own, and do not reflect the consensus of people who know the law.
No one here has claimed that military bases are American territory.
It is nice to know that Judy fantasizes about Coulter, but I’m confident it is a unidirectional feeling.
As usual, “could,” is doing all of the work. Only birthers confuse speculation for fact.
Judy’s fantasies are not reasonable indicators of what might happen.
Birthers’ imaginary two-citizen “rule” is not a requirement for natural-born citizenship.
Because no one here believes that.
Rand Paul next to jump the shark?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-cruz-qualified-to-be-prime-minister-of-canada/
Rand Paul: Is Ted Cruz eligible to run for president?
Rand Paul doesn’t know whether Ted Cruz meets the citizenship requirements for the presidency, but he offered another suggestion for the Texas senator.
“I think without question he is qualified and would make the cut to be prime minister of Canada. Absolutely, without question,” Paul deadpanned Wednesday about his Canadian-born rival during a Fox News Radio interview.
“I’m not an expert on the natural-born clause in the Constitution and people have various opinions,” he added. “And we’ve had some previous cases of it, but I don’t think we’ve ever gone through the court system for the Supreme Court to decide one way or another.”
I don’t think CRJ realizes that most of the famous betrayers of America were natural born citizens. The names Benedict Arnorld, Robert Hansson and Aldrich Ames immediately come to mind.
Please see important update to this article at its end. The story has gotten much bigger. Even the White House jumped in.
I seem to recall that there is some controversy over whether the Prime Minister of Canada has to be a Canadian citizen.
You are lying again. You have been told dozens of times that nobody here believes that citizen=natural born citizen. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a citizen of the United States, but he is not a natural born citizen. Everybody knows that.
You don’t believe that the Arizona Territory was under the jurisdiction of the United States? Are you aware that the governors of the Arizona Territory were all appointed by the President of the United States? Are you aware that a U.S. Marshal office was established in Phoenix in 1863? If the U.S. didn’t have jurisdiction, what was a U.S. Marshal doing there?
What would you know about how a military base operates? Military bases on foreign soil are not U.S. territory, but every American who lives or serves on a military base is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That includes John McCain.
Ah, well, Jefferson was, after all “too French” according to some of his contemporaries. He also was accused of attempting to burn the Constitution upon the “altar to Gallic despotism,” see:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/04/burning-the-constitution/
It will be interesting to see if it affects the polls.
I knew that.
Incorporated US Territories are part of the United States for citizenship purposes. Overseas military bases are not, and persons born on such bases are not US citizens unless their parents are citizens. See this State Department document:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
Page 5.
—-
Because no one here believes that.
I’ve read a lot of articles and comments made on this blog over the years. But I don’t think I ever read a single one suggesting that a U.S. President need not be a natural born citizen.
You’ve made it clear that you believe there SHOULD be a two parent citizenship requirement. If you feel that strongly about it, then perhaps you should start a petition to amend the Constitution to add that requirement.
Slartibartfast January 7, 2016 at 1:31 am (Quote) #
[Unsurprisingly you have misunderstood once again. Standing is a Constitutional merit of any case. ]
Actually. If you’d like a little Legal Lesson on [Standing]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes: (see 1,2,3)
Cont..
[ you could probably file a successful IFP application if necessary as well). However, being incompetent, you don’t have the necessary skills]
Of course your referring to the same legal skills that the District Court and 10th Circuit granted Forma Pauperis with the same year?
As well the skills The U.S. Supreme Court granted in Forma Pauperis 2012 and 2013 cases? Judy v. Obama 12-5276
Incompetence is a term you just identified yrself with in the deductive reasoning part of your brain. You shouldn’t sass the Teacher.💡
Yes, but Judy is arguing that Barry Goldwater was not a natural born citizen, and his parents were U.S. citizens. His father was born in California when it was a state and his mother was born in Indiana.
My point is that Barry Goldwater was born to two U.S. citizen parents and he was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
@Lupin
James Madison was the 11th Signer of the Constitution and in such was simply required to be a [Citizen] of which dual nations may exist, and for which the Constitution gave permission.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_signers_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Art. II, Sect I C-5
[Or a [Citizen] at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution]
The dual Citizen characters of some-of-this-some-of-that found in naturalized persons as Citizens are not found in [natural born Citizen] uniquely American for two generations.
Freedom of Religion is of course a mainstay in America. However, Religions maintaining Theocracys of war-armies and endorsing genocide of infidels-Americans must be balanced with Americans right to be secure in their homes.
Any people of certain religion not showing the respect of other peoples religions shown in Americas Constitution might find themselves subject to a litany of violations including Hate Crimes, and other conspiracy crimes against the Constitution.
Cont…
[which ought to cement the whole into one great family.”]
I’d meet you half way if you conceeded every State of the 50 States in the U.N gets a vote., as well every Foreign State adopt the U.S. Constitution becoming a State of our Union.
One big happy American Family.
Short of that, why don’t we worry about our Borders and what’s going on here more than giving BILLIONS to Theocracies like Obama has?
Different applications in different courts. That Judy cannot follow SCOTUS’ directions is entirely his own fault.
Mental acuity fades with age; perhaps Judy should seek medical attention.
Judy is the undisputed master of being incompetent.
@Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 7, 2016 at 12:28 pm (Quote) #
(CRJ: Imagine for a minute Cruz’s mother betraying the U.S. by denouncing her U.S. Citizenship for a Foreign State.)
[Umm no. Let’s not imagine it since it is pretty much American principles that we don’t punish the children for a parents actions.]
Sir, we here in America do not consider the Qualification of the Office of President to be a punishment to children as you suggest.
We do consider the Office of President to be a reward of cultivating American Culture without which there is no unique destinction. The offer is incentive. A bonus.. Something for the previous hard work of two generations noticed in [ natural born Citizen] born in the U. S. To Citizen Parents.
As that is jeopardized notice you will emphasise a disincentive of American Culture and strangulate it with a separation of nations within our nation, rather then unifying the U.S.A.
IT is not simple fear of foreign princes this was seen as wise to guard against. There was a pro active position of incentive for it.
Nothing in American culture (or law) requires two U.S. citizen parents.
This fantasy “rule” smacks of xenophobia, and perhaps racism.
@Bob [It is nice to know that Judy fantasizes about Coulter, but I’m confident it is a unidirectional feeling.]
Quit writing things like that. I’ll start to like you.
2 interesting conversations with Sarah Duggin, constitutional scholar and law professor, concerning “natural born citizen” from MSNBC
Why Cruz’s WH eligibility is not settled law
On page 54 of the BU law review article, Duggin co-wrote “… the natural born citizenship status of millions of Americans is open to question. Natural born citizenship is absolutely certain for United States citizens born post-statehood in one of the fifty states, provided that they are not members of Native American tribes recognized by the United States government. To varying degrees, the natural born citizenship status of all other United States citizens is suspect.”
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/why-cruz-s-wh-eligibility-is-not-settled-law-597339715673
and Ted Cruz’s ‘birther’ battle
http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/watch/ted-cruzs-birther-battle-597712451613
There was that claim from law professor Gabriel Chin that McCain was stuck in a Catch 22. The law that would make him a US citizen by specific birth in the Panama Canal Zone to at least one US citizen parent went into effect after he was born. It was kind of odd that it took over 33 years to pass such a law, but there it was. Professor Chin’s second opinion was that the laws that covered birth outside the US to US citizen parent(s) didn’t apply to the Canal Zone because it was not “outside the physical boundaries of the United States”.
I don’t buy that, but it is a pretty well constructed theory.
—
Say what?
Actually, we (who recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land) believe the Office of President is defined by Article II of the Constitution.
Article II of the Constitution does not define the Presidency as a reward, an offer, an incentive, a bonus, or a notice of two generations. You just made that up. Read the Constitution. It’s the Constitution that defines the Office of the Presidency, not your imaginings or preferences.
If you believe that the Office of President SHOULD be a reward for cultivating an American culture, an offer, an incentive, a bonus, or a notice of two generations, then perhaps you should start a petition to amend the Constitution accordingly.
I have seen Coulter in person. She is even more scrawny in person than she appears on television. Very unappealing, and that doesn’t even include the hateful things that she says.
What am I missing? Cruz had a U.S. Citizen mother though a non-citizen father, and the mother had lived United States long enough, and enough years after turning 14 or whatever the key age was in 1970, to pass on U.S. Citizenship to her son. So unless facts exist that I am unaware of, Cruz was born a citizen. And i am unaware of any constitutional provision, statute or court ruling that specifies a differnce between merely being born a citizen and being a natural born citizen. Therefore absent some pertinent detail I lack Cruz was born a natural-born citizen. So what am I missing?
There is an argument to be made, and our former commenter NBC made it here, that a person has to be born in the United States to be a natural born citizen. Most authorities say that natural born citizens are those who are born citizens, but there’s no court decision that says that.
The law was passed a few months after McCain was born, and it retroactively made McCain a citizen.
Different applications in different courts in different years. Therein lies the rub. CRJ made the following comment in a thread now closed:
But CRJ is wrong. His grants for in forma pauperis status from the lower courts came in 2014; his SCOTUS application wasn’t filed until 2015. Odds are high, based on what he has repeatedly said, that his IFP was filled in with the info from the same year as his application in the lower courts. I suspect the Clerk gave him a chance to correct the error, but with the way CRJ flipped out and his previous history, decided to docket it since it technically met the requirements, even though it would likely fail because it had the wrong information.
As far as his 2012 suit went, he tried to appeal the Judge Mahili decision (of empty chair fame) directly from the Georgia Superior Court to Supreme Court, skipping the Georgia Supreme Court (which you can’t do – it has to come from a Federal Circuit Court or a State Supreme Court). He initially tried to merge it with a New Hampshire appeal, but the time to appeal on that had expired a week before (nor can you merge them the way he tried to do). He also improperly captioned it as an appeal from the 11th Circuit, which it obviously wasn’t. Rather than file in the Georgia Supreme Court while he still had time, he sent in three revisions; the second dropped the improper caption (but was still improper because it didn’t include the court the appeal was coming from). He went ballistic after that was returned – the Clerk treated his petition for cert as a Rule 11 petition and CRJ denied that it was a Rule 11 petition in the cover letter for his third revision (for those playing the home game, Rule 11 allows a party to appeal to SCOTUS before a decision is made at the Circuit/State Supreme Court level, so long as the case is already filed at that level; it is the only way to get an appeal docketed at SCOTUS before a decision has been handed down). After that, he filed in the Georgia Supreme Court, but after time had expired (if only he’d followed the Clerk’s directions!). SCOG of course denied his petition as filed too late, so CRJ sent in revision 4. Slight problem: he once again captioned it as an appeal from the 11th Circuit, rather than the Georgia Supreme Court; and he also failed to clearly indicate that a decision had been handed down (so most likely the Clerk either saw that there was no appeal from the 11th Circuit and didn’t check to see if CRJ had simply screwed up the caption, or possibly the Clerk wasn’t able to decipher CRJ’s prose sufficiently to realize that a decision had been handed down – remember, CRJ had already vehemently denied using Rule 11). CRJ finally got enough of the particulars in the cover letter of revision 5 that the Clerk was able to figure out what CRJ’s errors were (he still had it miscaptioned and lacked the required discussion of the SCOG decision).
tldr: CRJ was incompetent and has no one to blame but himself for all the delays and failures at SCOTUS.
Sorry, guys, I tried to keep it brief, but when you’re as full of fail as CRJ, it’s hard, even when you stick to just the highlights.
As always you make absolutely no sense at all.
OMG, John McCain has gone birther. See update 2 to the article!
Obama Birthers Now Want Ted Cruz’s Head
Teo Bear, Joesph Farah, Mario Apuzzo, and Charles Kerchner
“If I could say anything to anybody, it would be to the Supreme Court—GET OFF YOUR ASS and make a clarification on who is a natural born citizen so we don’t have to do this again! Is that clear enough?” Bear screamed from the side of a Florida road before hanging up the phone.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/08/obama-birthers-now-want-ted-cruz-s-head.html
No problem. My mouse wheel is still working fine.
I will have to give it to Cruz. He has managed to generate Birthers from all over the political spectrum. All the Obama Birthers were hard right nut jobs. Ted Cruz must be a popular fella.
There is at least one case that differentiates among born citizens of the US. It is Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). Here is a synopsis prepared by Tes:
I highly recommend Tes’s fine summary of SCOTUS cases that touched upon :natural born citizen” SCOTUS & “Natural Born Citizen” – A Compendium that is still available on her older blog.
Many consider that Rogers v Bellei was a bad decision and Congress repealed the law that was upheld shortly after the case. However, the decision is still on the books. It doesn’t necessarily mean that those like Cruz are not NBC’s. It would however show that the status of some natural born citizens is under the power of Congress outside the Fourteenth Amendment.
Thanks Kevin. I had forgotten how royally CRJ screwed up his appeal in Georgia. Even Orly herself would have to work at it to beat that classic bit of FUBAR.
FYI, last night, Lawrence O’Donnell interviewed constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe about the meaning of natural born citizen. http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/trump-gives-cruz-legal-advice-on-citizenship-598149699969
That undoubtedly is why he refuses to show us his application for IFP status.
Scribd shows that Judy has uploaded 70 documents, yet his application for IFP status is not among them.
I’ll just point out that the “jump the shark” episode aired at the beginning of the show’s fifth season, in 1977. That particular episode actually got good ratings, and the show remained popular for years to come, lasting another six seasons.
So I’m really hoping this metaphor of Ted’s turns out to be as inaccurate as the other things he says. I know the election will be over in a year, but if I have to look at and hear Donald Trump’s little puckered anus-mouth for another year, it will feel like at LEAST six.
In addition to what RC already mentioned, there’s dicta in Wong Kim Ark:
The dissenting Justice disagreed, asserting that those foreign-born children were NBCs, based on applying the statutory English definition in effect at the time of the founding.
I don’t have the kind of experience in the law needed to guess whether a modern Court would agree, or go strictly with the common law standard, as it appears the WKA Court did. But my reading says that Court would declare Cruz “naturalized”, not “natural born”.
A Daily Beast article, in which your favorite birthers unload on Cruz.
Trump got the Cruz campaign to flinch:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/
This is becoming quite entertaining.
Or perhaps the Cruz people cleverly lured Trump into a trap so they could make an issue of his birfoonery 😉
(Just kidding, of course: Trump always comes up with something attention-getting when he’s flagging in the polls, and the latest ones appear to show Cruz ahead of him in Iowa, and slowly closing the gap nationally)
[Joey January 7, 2016 at 3:49 pm (Quote) #
I don’t think CRJ realizes that most of the famous betrayers of America were natural born citizens. ]
Qualification for the Office of President [ natural born Citizen] is a qualification for the Office of President and Vice Pres.
It does not implicate or remove the possibility of criminal actions for individuals who make wrong decisions and choices. Hillary Clinton for example is a natural born Citizen ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
[Rickey December 28, 2015 at 9:17 pm #
(re: CRJ: Hillary’s getting her garden ate by the FBI)
The FBI is not investigating Hillary Clinton.]
Hummm…
…Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/
“I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable,” DiGenova said.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex-u.s.-atty-clinton-two-months-away-from-criminal-indictment/article/2579620
I’m just waiting for them to get the campaign to scan and release a copy of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or perhaps a Certificate of Citizenship. Those are the only documents that really would document birthright citizenship for someone born overseas.
It is however possible for someone born abroad to get a US passport without ever getting a CRBA or Certificate of Citizenship. Heck – the US Embassy in Ottawa has a website that says just getting a passport may be enough. I know once one has one it’s fine for travel to the US (not that a Canadian would have much problem) and for employment eligibility documentation.
I would suspect that given the era, that he wouldn’t have needed a passport to cross the border then or that his mother’s and the birth certificate would have been sufficient if they had even checked. In those days the border was pretty porous and it most likely wouldn’t have been an issue, and once they were back in the states it wouldn’t have mattered. I would imagine he would have needed something the first time he got a passport since he had a foreign birth certificate, but that was a long time back as far as the way things were handled at the time.
Joe DiGenova is a lying right-wing political hack who has been slandering the Clintons for years.
The FBI has stated that its investigation of Clinton’s e-mails is solely for the purpose of determining if any classified information was compromised. There is not and never has been a criminal referral to the FBI. As the Washington Post reported in August, “The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target.”
Almost certainly not. I lived in Toronto for most of the 1970s, and came back to the States a couple of dozen times to visit. Never had any ID but my driver’s license, and usually wasn’t even asked for that when I was driving. They might’ve been a little more stringent with his father, since he was Cuban, but they probably would’ve just waved Mom and little Teddy through, regardless of whether they declared themselves as Americans or Canadians.
I was reading on one government web site recently that said: lacking a CRBA, the preferable route may be to get a passport because the Certificate of Citizenship is a more lengthy process.
Yes, the press is always behind the curve but they will eventually figure out that is the document he has not released.
I was born in Detroit and grew up in Tucson.
I have never had any trouble crossing back and forth into Canada or Mexico.
Curiously, growing up in Tucson, supposedly a hot bed of undocumented immigrants, the ONLY person I ever met and knew for sure was an undocumented alien and working illegally was a Canadian (though there were probably a few in my schools, or at least whose parents were undocumented).
My Canadian friend worked in the cash economy and was extremely careful to stay away from any situation that might draw attention to their undocumented status. This was in the late 70’s early 80’s and they were in the country because they wanted to do a specialized medical related course (they were already a nurse), which was OK, but the Feds figured they would want to work while in the country and the quota for Nurses was filled – they came anyway, got the qualification, returned to Canada, and began a very successful practice.
I don’t know why anything else would be needed to document citizenship. I always use my passport (or passport card) when I need to prove my US citizenship.
I remember when there were calls for a “Certificate of Noncitizen Nationality” to be issued in line with 8 USC 1452.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/certificates-of-non-citizen-nationality.html
Here are some articles on the delay and/or relative ease of just requesting a passport:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/citizenship-now/immigration-u-s-passport-certificate-citizenship-article-1.1250531
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/citizenship-now/long-wait-citizenship-certificate-article-1.1620426
It said the New York USCIS office had over a one year backlog on N-600 applications.
I couldn’t find anything about children naturalizing and getting a passport, but the State Department has information on birthright citizens born abroad:
I’m not sure if it’s anything more than entertainment, but I’ve been reading and commenting on the Breitbart article. Right now it’s over 12,000 comments. From reading those comments I’ve been “informed” (outside of the typical birther stuff about Obama) that:
* Natural born citizen status can be lost if one doesn’t register with the State Department before a certain time.
* Derivative US citizenship for those born abroad only passes through the father.
I wrote in my article, “This latest by Trump may spark another round of Cruz eligibility attention by the Media.” I didn’t realize how right that could be. Politico has an article this past Thursday, “Ted Cruz wrestles with birther debate.” This is the amazing quote from that article:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-birther-debate-217469#ixzz3wmPFqoF8
The advantage of the Certificate of Citizenship is that it doesn’t expire. It’s not a travel document, though, and I did get my Arizona driver license using an expired passport.
Well, they’ve already got Cruz jumping through hoops. I await the next act in this circus with bated breath.
I like that reference from the embassy. I’ll have to use that one.
I thought under more recent laws, an expired passport isn’t valid as ID. OK – I looked it up and California still accepts an expired passport as proof of US citizenship to get a driver license. However, an expired passport wouldn’t be an acceptable document for an I-9 employment eligibility check. The State Dept requires one that’s been issued less than 15 years ago for a “renewal”, although to them it’s still an ID.
However, the Certificate of Citizenship application is pretty high at $600. That’s on top of the long processing times. If you’re really in a hurry to prove US citizenship, the State Dept can issue a passport rather quickly.
A CRBA application is $100, but would require an application at an embassy or consulate.
There’s a rumor that the CRBA is coming in a few days.
it’s specifically not an acceptable ID for voting purposes in South Carolina. After the new Voter ID law was passed, I voted with a current passport in a municipal election just for the heck of it.
Mario Apuzzo interviewed by The Daily Beast. Charles Kerchner too.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/08/obama-birthers-now-want-ted-cruz-s-head.html
Strangely enough the Consular Report of Birth Abroad isn’t acceptable for I-9 employment eligibility verification. The USCIS says that its predecessor documents are acceptable and that it would require a specific rulemaking decision to add the CRBA to the list of acceptable documents.
http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/i-9-central-questions-answers/faq/form-consular-report-birth-abroad-fs-240-acceptable-list-c-document-if-not-can-it-be-added-list-acceptable-documents
Oh – I’ve come to the conclusion that Eleanor Darragh was born a zombie.
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/96cxhcef7k4yoc99/images/1-97a805449f.jpg
The certificate leaves out whether or not she was “Born alive or stillborn”. Therefore she must have been born undead.
Ted Cruz’s Parents Found On Canadian Voters List
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/ted-cruz-produces-mothers-birth-certificate-after-both-parents-found-on-canadian-voter-list/comments/#disqus
Steve Craig tried to get one. They told him to pound sand. I’ve got a link to his appeal somewhere.
Well, I would guess right off the top of my head that it’s dated later than 1970. That alone would be enough to induce some foaming at the mouth, even though Cruz was born on December 22. The later it’s dated, the more entertaining this is going to be.
Schroedinger’s Mother? Would that make Ted his brother?
I want to know what sort of creatures “Teo Bear” is dating, since he seems to think their procreative efforts would produce puppies. Does this have something to do with the Twilight series?
Yeah, that’s messed up. Bears have cubs.
I had to look up what he did. So he was attempting for some court or federal agency to recognize him as a natural-born citizen.
So he also wanted a Certificate of Citizenship that would state that he was a natural-born citizen. Well, first of all, 8 USC 1452 doesn’t allow for one to be issued except for statutory citizens. And second, I’ve looked at copies and there’s no place for notations.
If he really wanted something, how about the State Dept on a passport. I mean, they will place a notation in the endorsement page that the holder is a noncitizen US national. Heck, Obama’s passport says he’s POTUS on the endorsement page. Not that I’d think they would do it.
Here’s the AAO appeal:
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2011/Jan242011_04E2309.pdf
I like to remind him of that one every so often.
Craig was a frequent commenter at my blog until I asked him about his career in real estate in Oklahoma. He quietly disappeared after that. He posts his nonsense at BR under the name slcraignbc, http://intensedebate.com/profiles/slcraignbc
Man, that guy is nuts.
Trump on Meet the Press today:
TRUMP:
So what happens is I was watching Laurence Tribe of Harvard yesterday, who’s a constitutional expert; one of the true experts. And according to him, it’s a real question mark. You know, I would say he is one of the great authorities on this subject. He has a question mark. And–
TODD:
But do you have a question mark?
TRUMP:
Let me tell you. From Ted’s standpoint and from the party’s standpoint, he has to solve this problem. Because the Democrats will sue him if he’s the nominee. If Ted is the nominee, he will be sued by the Democrats. And according to one of the great lawyers of the country at Harvard, with strong opinions on this, the whole thing has not been– as he said, this matter has not been determined.
I would say that I would want the Supreme Court to rule because they haven’t ruled.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-january-10-2016-n493596
Yeah, even the inmates at the BR insane asylum ignore him.
And there’s the proof of the old saw: blind pigs do occasionally find an acorn.
I suppose we should see a glimmer of hope in MTP fact-checking one of the many favorite lies he repeated when they aired the clip, but I don’t see the promised follow-up on their website debunking the others.
There was a commenter at BR slcraig under the ID profile slcraigre up until about August of last year (227 comments) in addition to the slcrfaignbc one that started in 2012 and continues up until the present (479 comments).
Seems at a quick glance to be the same guy with the same turgid style.
Maybe Betty Lou Thelma Liz cracked down on his time spent birferin’.
I found out his real estate brokers license was suspended in 2013 for multiple violations of Oklahoma codes.
https://www.ok.gov/OREC/documents/Vol%2048%201st%20QTR%202013%20No%201.pdf
Yeah, but he’s not responsible for what he’s doin’.
🙂
“Born alive and still living” is somehow “checked”, the others striked out. (And in the text box, “born alive” is underlined and “stillborn” crossed out.)
But I would take issue with the stamps – letter sizes in “vital statistics” are all over the place, bending downwards then upwards, the clearly different “1”‘s in the date stamp.
Also, what “color or race” is “U”? Is that a very strange “W” for “white”?
And the “DEPAHTMENT” reminds me of “TXE”. 😉
Don’t forget to ask Cruz to release other birth certificates around that date so we can
make up claims howcompare if the BC number is out of order.As much as like to mock Trump on pretty much anything, there probably are an equal number of law review articles stating the NBC status of someone like Cruz is an open question as saying he is definitively an NBC (two legit law profs I know of who say it’s an open question are the above cited Duggin from CUA and McManmon from Widner).
We do know that with some minor exception, those born on US soil are NBC (Wong Kim Ark).
We also know that those born abroad are not automatically NBC under the Constitution, and without a special statute, would not be citizens of any kind and for half of our country’s existence, this was the case (Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 at 826). Rogers v. Bellei states Bellei’s citizenship, as does for all those born abroad to a US citizen parent, stems from Congress’s power to provide a uniform rule of naturalization. 401 US at 825.
So only those born on US soil are the only ones guaranteed citizenship under the Constitution. All else must rely on a statute for their citizenship, whether it be by a defined naturalization process, or via citizen parents. So by extension, the only people that can claim NBC status strictly by reason of the Constitution are those born on US soil.
Now the open question for us doubters is, how can Congress do indirectly what it can’t do directly? Congress cannot change the Constitution via statute, so how can they add people who are not qualified to be President by the mere terms of the Constitution, by a statute that purports to change the definition of a term whose only functional use is a s part of the Constitution? I think I could even rely on Marbury v. Madison for the premise that doing so would be unconstitutional.
Again, not to throw in my hat with Trump or the Birthers in general, but this isn’t as open and shut as Cruz, or many of us anti-birthers might argue.
I don’t think you are throwing your hat in with Trump. Most of the anti-Birthers (including me) have maintained that the question of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen is not clearly settled. Trump is the one throwing his hat in with us. Of course he has already flip-flopped on this issue and probably will again in a few months.
I think that if the courts ever took up the question and provided an answer it would be that he is.
I agree with your assessment of the state of the consensus. But I would point out that while it is a legitimate open question and most authorities agree that it is an open question, I don’t know of anyone of note whose opinion is that Cruz is not eligible.
I would argue that the terms in the Constitution go beyond the strict definitions of the common law, and extend to the British legal traditions at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Justice Taft wrote in Ex Parte Grossman: “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted.” And since 1350 the children of British subjects born overseas were recognized as having rights of the natural born, and by 1776 it was well-established that they were “natural born subjects.”
The Supreme Court cited Lord Darcy approvingly when he said that “natural born subject” under British law “means” someone who was a subject from birth. And if this is the definition of the term, then the Framers reasonably intended that Congress have the power to make natural born citizens just as the British Parliament had. It has been affirmed over and over that Congress has the power to make citizens at birth. And as proof, I note that the First Congress which counted among its members 8 of the 11 members of the committee that recommended the natural born citizenship clause in the first place did exactly that, made some foreign-born persons natural born citizens.
Even Rogers v. Bellei says, “We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” I read that to say that the modification of jus soli by statute is part of our English tradition.
But that is clearly not the case, since without a statute, an individual born abroad, to even two citizen parents, while on a short day trip across the border, would not be any kind of US citizen, and this was the case for the majority of our time as a nation. If the understanding of the definition of “natural born” was to incorporate the English statutes of the time, this would not be the case, and those individuals would automatically acquire citizenship, without needing a statute to grant them citizenship.
If you cannot run for President without a statute giving you citizenship, then Congress cannot make an end run around the Constitution by altering the definition. Altering the Constitution requires an Amendment.
“The introduction to this Article posed a question: “in the eyes of early
Americans, would someone born in a foreign country of American parents be a
‘natural born citizen’ and therefore eligible to be President of the United
States?” The pertinent historical materials lead to only one conclusion: aside
from children born to U.S. ambassadors or soldiers in hostile armies, the
answer is “no.”” Mary Brigid McManamon, The Natural Born Citizens Clause as Originally Understood, 64 Cath. U. L. Rev. 317 (2015).
I haven’t done an extensive search on the subject, but this was just a recent one I had handy.
So I’m still of the school that McCain was questionable, and Cruz is out. Obviously, if it went before the Court, it would be curious to see how things shake down (I don’t see the liberal judges taking a narrow view of the subject, and I can’t see Scalia putting aside his judicial activist tendencies to exclude a conservative candidate on the basis of originalism). I personally think we should just be done with it, and boot the whole requirement. Any citizen that meets the residency requirements is fine with me.
The article by Prof Ramsey published last week and cited by gorefan in another thread, “The Original Meaning of ‘Natural Born,'” goes directly to this question.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2712485
The introductory paragraph to Ramsey’s argument says:
I’m still reading and so I don’t have an opinion on how good the argument is.
The analogy that I would use is that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to punish piracy. In 1789 “piracy” referred to ships at sea. Would you argue that Congress couldn’t pass a law defining “air piracy” as a form of piracy, and then be able to punish it under the auspices of the Constitution?
I’ve been going through the records of the contested election of William Loughton Smith to Congress, which are reproduced pretty extensively here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=sxS00wE2l5kC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
and came across this remark of his, directed at his challenger Dr. Ramsay, couched as the hypothetical advice of a “real friend”:
“Doctor you are about to do a very imprudent thing, which will hurt Mr. Smith but little and will unquestionably injure you much. For the sole purpose of carrying your election you are endeavoring to deprive of the right of citizenship your antagonist, because you are conscious that you stand on bad ground yourself. If your fellow citizens think you are the fittest man to represent them, they will elect you; if not, no artifices, no maneuvers, no publication in the newspapers will induce them to do it. Therefore act like a man on this occasion, and stand the contest like a man.”
I kind of got a kick out of that.
I’ve seen similar arguments that the founders must have intended to give Congress the power to alter the definition of NBC, but there is really no basis to make this claim. It’s just total conjecture, and to be honest, I rather not give the Congress that kind of power. Allow them to get back door changes to the Constitution by mucking with definitions in one matter, you set the precedent for them to try and do it elsewhere. I firmly believe if you’re doing something that fundamentally changes the operation of the Constitution, you can only do it by amendment. And if Congress has the power to deny or condition the citizenship of a person, you have effectively rendered the NBC requirement meaningless. But again, this is merely an academic position for me (I’m a big will of the people kinda guy).
I think the two are completely distinguishable. “Air piracy” isn’t something the founders could have imagined (I suppose they could have “imagined” it, but folks don’t tend to write science fiction into their legal documents). The founding fathers not only could imagine a person being born abroad to citizen parents, but they passed a statute regarding that subject shortly after writing the Constitution. Furthermore, air travel is a natural parallel to sea travel. To link the two if fairly logical. Rather than fundamentally altering a definition, you are taking something that could not have been contemplated in the Constitution, and trying to apply the closest similar situation that could have been contemplated. A perfectly fair extension of the existing document to modern situations.
How about a hypothetical constitutional requirement that a President must be an eligible voter. Let’s say that every statute on voting in 1789 said that one must be 21 years old… but then Congress passed a law saying that 18-year-olds may vote in federal elections. Are they changing the definition of “voter.”
What I am saying, of course, is that there never was any requirement that US Presidents be born in the United States and no intent by the Framers to create one, rather that they intended that a President had to be a citizen all his life. I go back to Bancroft’s interpretation of the 1787 Federal Convention’s adoption of the clause:
“The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president.”
The problem is we don’t know exactly what their intent was. If we did, there wouldn’t be much to discuss. We know they intended something more than mere citizenship, and that’s about it. We also know that they didn’t consider those born abroad to be citizens, because they felt compelled to pass a statute covering them shortly thereafter. I would argue that this is evidence that they intended to require the President to be born on US soil but putting in the requirement for NBC, which they understood, on its own, they understood to be jus soli.
And to be honest, one could argue that a person born abroad, even to citizen parents, for all intents and purposes is just as much a foreigner than one born to citizen parents abroad. They are being raised in a foreign culture.
Then you would have to look what was an eligible voter in 1789, and see if that was considered part of the common law at the time (as you look to the common law for undefined Constitutional terms) and that is your requirement. If there was a subsequent amendment changing that requirement, or that requirement had been broadened by the courts, as has actually happened (see 19th and 26th amendment, courts striking down poll taxes and literacy tests, and various other limitations), then those changes applied. I’m guessing if that was the requirement, you may have seen a different body of law develop because of that (or perhaps not). If there was no clear definition in the common law at the time, who knows what it might have been. As it is, they chose an age that was higher than the average voting age of the time. They also didn’t require the person own land, which was a common restriction for voting at the time. Again, I’m not sure quite how the law could have shaped up over time, because there is no subsequent case law to guide us. As it is for the NBC question, we at least have a few clues along the way. Not enough to make it an open an shut case, but something for us to discuss.
But the Constitution is clear that being raised in a foreign culture is not a bar to the Presidency, stating that one is free to live outside the United States (presumably at any stage of life) for at least 21 years (age at least 35 minus 14 years of mandatory residency) without losing eligibility.
Again, the NBC clause is pretty flawed as a check on much of anything, but it is a limitation on eligibility nonetheless. A person born overseas to non-citizen parents, but raised and lived in the US for their whole lives, is going to be less “foreign” than someone born in the US, grows up overseas, and pops over to the US intermittently over their lives to add up to 14 years over the course of their lives. One is eligible, the other isn’t. But despite of this, the NBC is still in the Constitution, and it still has to be read to have some kind of a meaning. And we have to come to this meaning under our normal methods of legal interpretation, in reliance on the common law and stare decisis.
Also, this assumes that it’s the (biological) parents who raise you.
A person could be born to two citizen parents in the US, yet be raised by their Russian citizen neighbors. Does that make him as foreign as if he had been born to those Russians right away?
Especially given that the Founders did not (and could not) distinguish between the legal father and the biological father (DNA testing having been not invented yet).
So the next question would be, which father counts? Assume, today, someone’s legal father is a US citizen, but later it is proven his biological father was Canadian.
For a Vattelist, in the modern view, that would make the person ineligible. However, how would an originalist interpret it? If the Founders could not differentiate between legal and biological father, which one would be controlling in this case?
As you see, a whole can of
wormscrazy whoopass, all as a consequence of looking to parents.Another issue, of course, would be recursion. If the parents’ citizenship mattered, we’d have challenges to their citizenship in order to challenge a candidate. If they were born abroad, we’d have to look to *their* parents in order to check their citizenship. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam.
If the terms in the Constitution are understood according to English Common Law AND English legal practice, then the Framers might have thought that their mention of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution included both birth in the country and overseas to citizens, and it might have been in response to an argument to the contrary that they passed the 1790 Act just to tie up any loose ends.
Or alternately (and I think far more likely), the Framers may have intended not to provide any rule in the Constitution whatever about who is and is not a citizen, leaving such question to the States. Think about it. If the Framers intended that the Constitution define the qualifications for citizenship, why didn’t they say “The citizens of the United States are …” rather than making the courts guess their intent by looking to the presidential eligibility clause, which is about something else entirely? If the Framers clearly intended to define citizenship according to the English Common Law Rule, why did we need the 14th Amendment to affirm the principle of the English Common Law? It seems more logical that the Framers intended state law to govern citizenship for persons who were born as citizens, relegating to Congress naturalization (making citizens after birth). I contend that the Framers intended for the eligibility clause to include all citizens from birth (just like the dictionary says), and that what “citizen from birth” included was left up to the states. The Framers did not intend a uniform rule, much less an immutable one. In support of that contention I cite the Smith controversy.
Congressman Smith was elected to the House from South Carolina, and his eligibility was challenged based on the claim that he had not been a citizen of the United States the requisite time (Smith having been overseas during the Revolutionary War). When deciding the Smith question, Congress found that there was a problem deciding when Smith became a citizen due to deficiency in state law. Here’s what Madison said speaking before the House:
Following that Madison says: “it is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage…”
It may well have been in response to the hodgepodge of state laws that Congress in the following year passed the 1790 Act to clear up the non-uniformity of state law for extraterritorial births.
I would disagree there. In France, the law would only consider the LEGAL parent (for example in the case of adoption). The biological father would have no rights whatsoever.
Arguably the same was true in the 18th century, since ” bastards” (if legitimized by the cuckholded husband) had the same rights as if they had been biological children.
Let me just throw my two cents worth in here.
Trump is playing to his audience like a grand conductor.
Trump’s base is in large part, racist and xenophobic. I don’t think Trump has ever cared about Cruz’s eligibility so much as constantly reminding GOP voters that Cruz was born in Canada….that Cruz is Latino…..that Cruz was born in Canada…..and oh by the way- maybe he is not eligible….so that is another reason to not vote for him…..
Trump is playing to the voters that just need an excuse to vote for him rather than Cruz.
Trump is American and eligible. Cruz is Cuban and not eligible.
The vast majority of the sheeple don’t understand how dangerous this situation can be. It’s Trump’s JOB as a representative of the people to make sure they know this and know that his aim is to protect us.
Trump is doing his job.
Trump also recognizes that there is an American audience. Most of these clowns just take old speeches and blow off the dust thinking that we’re supposed to be impressed with their half-assed efforts.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger was deemed ineligible, so is Ted Cruz. Schwarzenegger honors this constitutional decision. Cruz does not.
If Cruz is somehow miraculously found eligible, then the presidential vote goes to Schwarzenegger and he should be grandfathered in. At least Arnold respects the Constitution.
Trump2016!
and Madison continued, “but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
And let’s not forget, Smith was born on US soil.
As the Supreme Court has stated, the 14th Amendment didn’t change anything, it only ensured that any doubt created by the Dred Scott Case (which even at the time it was made was considered a self-inflected black eye upon the Court) was completely eliminated. The 14th Amendment conferred no new rights. It merely clarified what the law was, and that it applied to former slaves just as it did to free white men.
I haven’t done a check, but were there any states that conferred citizenship any other way than jus soli between the revolution and the civil war?
I know off hand that Virginia did:
And a similar Virginia statute in 1783 again affirmed the citizenship of those infants “wheresoever born.”
Exactly! Some popular books, websites, and careless scholars say that the 14th Amendment ‘GRANTED’ or ‘CONFERRED’ citizenship by its text. But the amendment contained no such enacting language; it does not contain either of the necessary enacting terms of all the provisions in the Constitution which do establish a new condition or power of law, namely the imperative word ‘shall’ or the permissive word ‘may’.
It says, “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.”
It does not say, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, SHALL BECOME citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
It is as though it reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, (ALREADY) ARE citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The only other declaratory use of the word ‘are’ in the Constitution, also arguably simply states a legal condition which existed before the Constitution, in a way that removes any doubt that such remains the case after the mentioning provision is ratified.
It is when the 10th Amendment declares: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, ARE reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So here again the prospectively imperative word(s), “shall (be) reserved” are unnecessary.
It is easy to see, that, by (omitted) definition, the Constitution preceding the 10th Amendment, laid no claim to any such un-delegated powers.
How Trump made it stick:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/tracing-the-evolution-of-donald-trumps-birther-attack-on-ted-cruz/
Disappointing: when I saw “evolution” in the title, I was hoping he’d go back to when Trump first started this, years ago. It just covers the short-term tactic of planting a seed, then responding to what “some people are saying”.