Note: I have neither donated to, nor intend to vote for, Senator Cruz in the primary.
With Ted Cruz doing well in the polls the ever popular question of eligibility to run for President issue raises it’s ugly head. Again. This dangerous trend started with John McCain and President Obama, and now the mantle has passed on to Senator Cruz. Regardless of where you stand on the candidates, anyone running for office, be it dog catcher, President, or something in between, deserves to be judged on the merits of their positions and content of their character rather than superfluous, specious allegations regarding their eligibility for office. Statesmanship is a lost art, and for that reason it’s important to examine the question of eligibility for office. Not because of partiality or dislike towards a candidate, but because it’s the right thing to do for the county. To that end, let’s take a look at what leaves a person eligible for the Presidency.
In order to run for President two conditions must be met.
1) The person must be eligible to run for office.
2) The person must not have been disqualified from running for office.
Although the second issue may come into play in the election depending on how the Clinton email investigation concludes, since it is not at issue at this time only Senator Cruz and eligibility will be discussed. The Constitution establishes in order to run for the Presidency a candidate must:
1) Be at least 35 years old.
2) Have 14 years of residency.
3) Be a natural born citizen.
Those alleging Cruz is ineligible to run for office attack the third requirement as not being met. This is a nearly identical charge as was made against McCain and Obama. And just like peeling and cutting a pineapple, no matter how many times it’s done it’s a sticky, messy proposition. While legal scholars have opined both for and against the eligibility the question is very clearly answered that Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen. The Harvard Law Review has an excellent analysis of the issue and presents a compelling case as to why Cruz is eligible, so I will rather focus on the difficulties with the argument against as set forth in the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed piece which gives a good breakdown of the argument against eligibility. While I do not disagree with the Harvard article, I would argue that the case against eligibility fails for a different reason.
The crux of the argument against Cruz being a natural born citizen is that he was born in Canada to a US citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father. Had both parents been US citizens, there would be no question. Had he been born in the US, there would be no question. But he was born abroad to a noncitizen father, and the original rubric for natural born citizen is suggestive of using paternal lineage to establish natural born citizenship. Had the father been a US citizen the question would be resolved, but because the claim to natural born citizenship flows through maternal lineage, and the original intent was for paternal lineage he is ineligible to run for office.
At face value, this argument is logically consistent and seems facially valid. Where then does it fail? The problem is that the Constitution doesn’t directly address the issue of what constitutes a natural born citizenship. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, the Supreme Court noted, “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” With the terms undefined, intent is the proper method to determine the meaning of the terms. Seems like the Cruz is ineligible argument has support. However, this fails when viewed in light of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the Fourteenth amendment facially only deals with persons born within the territory of the United States, it establishes a break from the original intent of the Constitution. The Amendment was written, in part, to ensure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would not be struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress. In addition to breaking away from the original intent of the Constitution the Fourteenth Amendment also contained the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause, in a nutshell, states that two individuals, otherwise identically situated, cannot be treated unequally on the basis of inalienable characteristics. Gender is an inalienable characteristic, and so the distinction between natural born status based on paternity versus maternity now fails Constitutional muster and Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen based upon being born to a US citizen mother.
You may be thinking the Fourteenth Amendment only holds true to the states and the federal government is not bound by the Amendment; therefore, Senator Cruz is still ineligible since the original intent holds. As a technical matter, this is correct. However, the eligibility is established through the Fifth Amendment. Historically, the Equal Protection clause was frowned upon by the Supreme Court. However, in modern jurisprudence the federal government has been bound to the Equal Protection Clause via the Fifth Amendment. In Bolling v Sharpe (347 U.S. 947) the Supreme Court stated, “the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The “equal protection of the laws” is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than “due process of law[.]” As the Fifth Amendment binds the Equal Protection Clause to the federal government the discrimination of natural born citizenship based on paternity versus maternity would never survive a strict scrutiny analysis and Senator Cruz is eligible to run.
Those who argue the issue is not settled are correct. The issue has not been definitively addressed by the courts, and technically could be a live dispute if someone with standing were to raise the issue. This brings us to the good of the country aspect. Who can raise a dispute? A voter cannot. Neither can a PAC or similarly situated organization. However, it’s conceivable that a state party, or less likely a county party, could seek a declaratory judgment that allowing Senator Cruz on the ballot is proper. A state party has the obligation to ensure that the candidates on the ballot are eligible for the position they seek. Seeking to declare they can put Senator Cruz on the ballot is an easy way to resolve the issue. As the state party is acting to include the candidate the legal action would be friendly, with only the state party and Senator Cruz being able to present evidence. Or Senator Cruz himself could seek such a judgment.
Please note that I am NOT advocating for a county or state party to initiate such an action. The purpose of this entry is simply to explain why Senator Cruz is eligible to hold the office of President, to establish how he is, and give an avenue for how the question can be definitively settled.
I believe the FOUNDERS wanted the highest tier of loyalty/allegiance they could get to avoid the intrigues of other nations being drug into the highest office of the land. If even one parent does not need to be a citizen and the child is born outside the USA then the possibilities here are endless.
You could have a Syrian brought over to the USA as a youth raised here by the parents, one of which could be a foreigner who gained citizenship over time. In today’s world of fly by night citizenship and American-born terrorists I think this legal question strays very far indeed from the intent of the Founders. They had enough sense to write “citizen” instead of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. There was a reason for that.
Hi Liz, I’m not sure where you are getting information that the Founders wrote “citizen” rather than “natural born citizen.” Here’s Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The text directly states “natural born citizen.” Could you clarify what you mean?
Comparing Cruz to Obama or McCain is like comparing apples to oranges. McCain was born in US territory to parents serving in the armed forces of the United States.
Obama was born in the states to, although there is a question as to whether he also had British citizenship through his father, which would disqualify him. I would never vote for Obama as president, nor have I.
The founders were clear that they did not want divided loyalties for the Commander in Chief.
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/john-jay-alexander-hamilton-and-the-mystery-of-the-natural-born-citizen-letter/
By the way Rubio also has problems as his parents were not citizens of the United States when he was born.
Hi Manuel, thanks for the comment. I guess I wasn’t specific enough in my articulation. You are absolutely correct in the reasoning for ineligibility for office between the parties differs. I was simply establishing that there is a developing longitudinal history of allegations of ineligibility for office in recent history and that it’s an harmful distraction to the political process since candidates should be judged on position and character rather than untenable arguments about eligibility for office.
The US doesn’t recognize dual nationality but a heck of a lot of countries do. I have a friend who is a dual UK-Nigeria national married to a Tanzanian national. He has two kids born in Texas. So, they have derivative UK-Nigerian-Tanzanian nationality and they are 14th Amendment US citizens.
You need to be very careful here Manuel regarding John McCain. His citizenship at birth was due to his parentage not the status of the territory on which he was born.
8 U.S. Code § 1403 – Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
“(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”
Does this make him “natural born” ?
While I disagree with Sen. Cruz on many policies, he is a natural born U.S. citizen through his mother’s American citizenship. He became a US citizen when the doctor slapped him on the bottom.
Thousands of children are born every year to US citizens abroad. They may be in military families, children of government or international organization staff, employees of multinational corporations or just tourists. They derive their US citizenship through their parents’ citizenship. The State Department even has procedures to register US citizen births abroad.
Some pick up dual citizenship like Cruz did. They still are US citizens.
As an aside, his claim to US citizenship is statutory. President Obama was born in a US state, Hawaii, to an American citizen mother (unless you think someone like the CIA placed the birth announcement in the newspaper right after his birth so a Kenyan could run for president 45 years later). Obama’s citizenship is born in the US citizenship under the 14th Amenrment.
He applied for a Pell Grant (does not have to be paid), so he decided it was time to assume his US citizenship. He then registered for selective service as required by persons who are 18. He failed to do it when he hit 18, did so only when he wanted free money for his education. All my sons registered when they hit 18.
Cruz is the type of person some of you want for president?
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/revealed-us-senator-ted-cruzs-selective.html
How does support or lack of support for his candidacy bear on the question presented of is he a Natural Born Citizen or not? They seem to be two separate issues.
So, Manuel, let me see if I understand your position. If a pregnant woman, who sneaks into the US illegally, gives birth to a child while she is here, that child is a citizen – no questions asked. But, if a woman who is indisputably a US citizen happens to give birth while she is out of the country – then not so much. Is that your position???
Fat albert, Rubio’s parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, is he eligible.
But you don’t have to take my word for it, there are legal scholars thatstate that Cruz is not eligible. Following is a link to a very well written article.
By the way, what if Cruz had been born in Iran to an American mother and had lived there until he was 18, assume his mother registered him with the American Consulate (if there was one). Would you be incline to allow him to run?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
Even if the wapo article correctly interprets the common law – which is highly debatable – it fails in that the analysis ends with the jurisprudence of the framers era. For better or worse the jurisprudence has changed significantly since then with the establishment of equal protection. To end the analysis as the article does misses the legal issues at question. It’s not a matter of is he a natural born citizen. The question is does declaring him not to be run afoul of the relevant current statutes AND does it survive constitutional review. Cruz has to lose on both issues to be ineligible.
By that way Fat Albert that is not my position, but your mind is poisoned with hate for brown looking people that you see “illegals” every where.
By the way you fail to distinguish the difference between citizen and natural born, Cruz is a citizen, congress passed laws early in their history that allowed him to be a US citizen.
Cruz has other problems as his mother may have been a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth. That would disqualify him from being a citizen. She was registered to vote in Canada, her name is found in voters lists along with his father. His father does not deny that he was a Canadian citizen.
10 to 1 that you don’t think Obama is a natural born citizen.
Manuel,
1. I think that Barack Obama is the most incompetent US President since Millard Fillmore. But he is (unfortunately) a citizen.
2. “Natural Born” – a citizen at birth, i.e. not naturalized at a later date. As in a person who is born of a woman who is a citizen.
3. If I’m the guy that hates “brown skin” then why are you the guy that’ doesn’t want a guy with brown skin to get elected? I don’t care if your skin is white, brown, black, yellow or pink and purple polka dotted. I despise people who can’t argue on the merits and have to result to calling someone racist.
4. You can find a legal scholar who will argue the opposite side of any position you care to take. That’s what lawyers do.
5. As for your silly “what if” about Cruz being born in Iraq. . . If he has a US citizen for a parent, then he’s eligible to run for President. Whether I’d vote for him is a different question.
6. It doesn’t surprise me that the Washington Post is writing articles against Cruz. The Washington establishment hate Trump, but they are terrified of Cruz. Which, as far as I’m concerned is a great reason to vote for him.
Who is brown skin, Cruz?
Fat Albert, I believe your comments on illegals have been posted numerous times. You are wrong if you are born in a foreign country, you are naturalized but not in the same way as some one who applies for citizenship who did not have citizen parents. You have to apply for citizenship either at the Consulate or with the State Department. I person born in the states does not have to apply for citizenship. I refer to the process of applying for citizenship as naturalized.
Tell me what was the purpose of an “illegal” crossing the border? Do you think of blond hair blue eye beauties when you have thoughts like that? Be honest.
One more time, a citizen is not sufficient to run for president. Would you believe it if I found a Fox commentator that said that? Besides if you think Obama is bad, Cruz would be as bad or worse than Obama, based on his inability to tell the truth.
Would you believe Coulter?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264930-coulter-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen
Or how about this guy,
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/12/senator-ted-cruz-was-for-the-constitution-before-he-turned-against-it/comment-page-3/
Or how about this group;
http://conservativeread.com/cruz-the-maple-leaf-candidate/
Neither Cruz, Rubio, Jindal (already dropped out) should be eligible as far as I am concerned.
At Manuel Barrera
Just so we’re clear on the timeline –
Ted was born on December 22, 1970.
He turned 18 on December 22, 1988.
He registered for the non-existent draft on April 18, 1989.
He was still 18.
He was still in high school.
I don’t know how much internet access you had in 1988.
I didn’t even have a PC.
I registered for the draft six months after my 18th birthday.
Ted beat me by two months on that count.
Back then, you had to go to the post office to register.
Have you seen a post office three days before Christmas?
Not a pretty sight.
The law requires that males register before they are 26.
He complied with the law.
If that’s the criteria you use for who to vote for twenty-five years later, knock yourself out.
I’m Tom Zakes and I approve this message.
He applied for a pell grant and had to register.
I did notice that you narrowed the topic to one thing, the selective service as it is the most defensible because he met the time allotment, But, as I pointed out he registered because he applied for a Pell Grant, you know money you don’t have to pay back. I paid back all my student loans and paid for my tuition. It is also amazing that he was using affirmative action programs to his benefit. I did not have that luxury of affirmative action when I graduated and managed to go to college.
Manuel,
Once again, I say “Illegals” and you hear “brown skin”. I believe sir, that the problem is not what I say – it’s what YOU hear. Try getting past your poor, aggrieved, personal feelings and just listen to (or read) the actual words. I don’t care where you’re from, Ireland or Iceland, China or Indonesia, Mexico or El Salvador, Kenya or Ethiopia. If you are here legally, welcome! I hope you integrate, assimilate, and love our country as much as I do. If you are here illegally – you should leave. Now. Come back the right way.
As for your list of pundits who disagree with me. So what? Were I inclined, I could post a similar list of those who take the alternate position. But, here’s the bottom line. Unless someone who has standing files suit and gets a federal count to rule otherwise, both Cruz and Rubio are going to continue to seek the office of President. If you don’t like them – don’t vote for them (I hear Jebbie’s desperate for supporters!) But trying to eliminate candidates on a technicality, just because you don’t like them just ain’t gonna work my friend – didn’t work against Obama, isn’t gonna work against Cruz or Rubio.
I guess when I heard wetback, I was just hearing what I wanted to hear. Illegals is just a new way for people to refer to people as wetbacks.
It is funny that you use the word sneaked into the country, from where does one sneak from, Germany? Kinda hard to do that, although women from China are coming here to have babies but they are not sneaking in, they are flying in and going through customs.
Let me repeat Illegals is just a new way to say wetbacks. It is a demeaning term, while I guess that some people could infer that I said you were racist, I did not say it. Guilty minds sometimes do things like that.
As far as I am concerned anyone that uses the word illegals is no different then a person who used to use the word wetbacks. I have been called that numerous times during my life. Image how mad I got when I heard a young pimply face white teenager, refer to my father as a wetback. My father spent four years fighting for this country in the pacific during WWII. Tell me fat albert how long has your family been citizens of this country? My family (both sides maternal and paternal) became citizens in 1848, treaty of Guadalupe Hildago.
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/guadalupe-hidalgo/
Manuel, coming from a guy who is married to a legal immigrant, you are hearing what you want to hear, and the type of discourse you engage in is counterproductive.
“Wetback”, which you are the only one using in this thread, directly related to illegal immigrants of Hispanic lineage. That’s different from illegals. Illegals is just that; people who are in the country illegally. Just because you equate the terms doesn’t mean that everyone does and certainly doesn’t mean that all speakers do.
Go beyond Hispanic lineage and illegal immigrants still draws a sharply negative reaction. Why? Because the term captures kapamilia. It captures Jiātíng. It captures familie.
The race baiting doesn’t help your cause.
Manuel:
I’m not sure where you saw the term “wetback”, but it wasn’t from me. “Sneak” is a generic term that I use as a catch-all to indicate that the person has somehow entered our country and is now here unlawfully. You’re welcome to use any term you wish. If you think that “illegals” is just a new term for “wetback”, then you’re the one with a problem.
My father fought in Korea, both of my Grandfathers fought in WWII. I attempted to enlist and was rejected because of medical concerns. None of which is germane to the discussion. Both sides of my family came to the US in the early 1800’s, my wife’s family fought in the Revolutionary war. Also irrelevant.
I’m sorry you had to experience racial abuse when you were a kid. That kind of think is abhorrent. But one of the solutions (the other being to drown racist bigots at birth) is to work at eliminating unlawful “immigrants”, and then to assimilate those who are here legally. It won’t eliminate the problem, but it will help.
You are right, so when people right wing nuts, or white trash, people hear what you want to hear.
Illegal is no different then wetback. Because you 0r others like you think it is okay, does not mean it is.
Counter productive to what?
People thin illegals and think about the tens of thousands of Polish that are here?
Wetbacks was used for anyone that looked Mexican, dark skinned, high cheek bones. etc
So you think referring to people as illegals is productive in attracting brown skinned persons (Mexican looking) to the Republican party?
Illegal is not a noun, but somehow people have no problem using it as such. It is an offensive word.
But you are right about 40{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the Republican party has no use for Mexican looking people.
Fat Albert I like that term, unlawful immigrants.
I have been against illegal immigration, notice it is not a noun. since the 1970s. I have been against the free trade agreement since NAFTA. They are both job killers of American jobs. The Republicans have actually have been a large part of both to occur. But the Republicans also represent smaller government, pro family, values. When people say that they are not taking the jobs Americans will do, the question becomes who was doing them before. Their culture is different and to many do not want to conform to our culture. I hate that they wave flags that are not Americans. But unfortunately they look like me and my family and people can’t tell the difference between those that are legally and illegally.
Manuel:
For a variety of reasons I can (and do) sympathize with your issue. It stinks when people look at you and see something other than what you actually are.
In your case, I think that one solution (at least a partial solution) is to do a much better job of controlling the border. If the problem of unlawful immigrants is greatly reduced, then a lot of people won’t be as prone to see them everywhere. That won’t solve racist bigotry, but then you just can’t fix stupid.
As far as Ted Cruz goes – it is possible that some court somewhere will rule him to be ineligible for the office of President. If that happens, then we as a country will have to deal with it. I’m just not a fan of using that issue to campaign against a candidate. I didn’t like it when “birthers” were railing against Obama, and I don’t like it now.
If you don’t like a candidate, argue and campaign on his/her merits or lack thereof. Trying to get them disqualified feels, at least to me, like a stinking lawyer trying to manipulate the system because he doesn’t have a good case otherwise. If your only beef against Cruz is that his Mother happened to be living in Calgary at the time he was born, then you don’t have much of a beef.
WHO applied for a Pell Grant, Manuel?? OBAMA?? or CRUZ?? or both of the above??
I would like to know.
Thanks!! Joan//Saturday night
What will it take for a court to hear the merits of this debate and eventually settle the matter? The most likely avenue I see is for a state to deny ballot access to an individual on the basis of a claim of ineligibility. The aggrieved party would then sue and undeniably have standing to do so. Perhaps a state will try to deny Cruz or someone else in the future ballot access and the courts will finally tell us what exactly “natural born citizen” means. I will not be holding my breath.
In the mean time I am quite sure of what will not happen. Someone like Cruz will not have to defend his place on a ballot nor the validity of his election from a suit brought by a citizen or group of citizens because of a lack of standing.
Even if a lower court granted standing and heard the merits the case is unlikely to go anywhere on appeal. The higher courts would likely quash such cases again for lack of standing. The very last thing that would happen is the current Supreme Court ousting a president-elect or a sitting President for failure to meet eligibility requirements, though I’m sure three or four votes backed by flowery language would go either way depending on whose ox was being gored..
There are “legal scholars” who will argue that Texas never officially joined the union. If you follow that logic, none of us are eligible to vote for the US president, so this argument is all moot. If you follow the plain words of the Constitution, and supporting statutory law, along with a little common sense, Cruz is clearly eligible as are all the other candidates on stage with foreign born parents (Trump, Rubio).
Mr. Degeyter,
Are you aware that the Harvard Law Review used the Naturalization Act of 1790 to convince you of Ted Cruz being a NBC? The 1790 act was repealed & replaced with the Naturalization Act of 1795 to remove the natural born citizen language because its purpose was to define naturalized citizens only.
I find this use of the 1790 act very deceptive bordering on either ignorance or intentional lying.
So what else can you point to defining Cruz to be a natural born US citizen?
Among other things – Judges in 3 different courts, in 3 different states (NY, Fla, and Ill.) have thrown out challenges to his eligibility.
The courts aren’t going to decide anything. Congress has the Constitutional authority to make that call. I’m just not convinced that Ted Cruz is truly
a natural born citizen of the US and eligible to be President. Any info without
using the Natural Act of 1790 would be appreciated.