Cruz and Rubio are “eligible” to be president

Please see my new post of April 5, 2016, “Why Ted Cruz is not Eligible to be President.” It shows a new legal argument that I believe will prevail.

by Dr. Ed Berry, also NewsWithViews

The question of whether Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are eligible to be president of the United States has been reviewed by several authors. The question comes down to the definition of a natural born citizen.

Cruz was born in Canada while his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father had been a resident of the United States. Rubio and Jindal were both born in the United States to parents who were not U.S. citizens.

As a physicist, I leave lawyering to the lawyers. I stick to reading and qualifying legal opinions. The logic of physics is very similar to the logic of law.

Below are my summaries of the three key legal opinions on this subject. Apuzzo argues for ineligible. Katyal, Clement, and Maskell rebut Apuzzo’s opinion and argue for eligible.

Unfortunately, America’s political process considers anyone who throws his hat in the ring to be eligible until someone proves otherwise. Therefore, the only way to find Cruz or Rubio ineligible is for someone to prevail in a US court to prove they are ineligible.

My reading of Apuzzo’s legal argument is that it is lacking in substance necessary to prevail. Therefore, I conclude Katyal, Clement, and Maskell easily win the debate, meaning both Cruz and Rubio will be considered “eligible” to be president.

Please see my April 5, 2016, post “Why Ted Cruz is not Eligible to be President.” It shows a new legal argument that I believe will prevail.

Mario Apuzzo – Cruz and Rubio are ineligible

Mario Apuzzo claims neither Cruz nor Rubio are eligible. He wrote on November 29, 2015:

Only those born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of their birth are “natural born citizens.”

Cruz can be a citizen of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress (section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952).  He is not and cannot be a natural born citizen under the common law because, while he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, he was not born in the United States and he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father.

Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to two non-U.S. citizen parents.  They are both citizens of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.  They are not and cannot be natural born citizens under the common law because, while they were born in the United States, they were born to two non-U.S. citizen parents.

However, Apuzzo did not address the following two legal reviews.

Neal Katyal and Paul Clement – Cruz and Rubio are eligible

Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, Professors of Law at Georgetown University, wrote a commentary in the Havard Law Review March 11, 2015, titled, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’.” They conclude,

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born.

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.

But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.

Jack Maskell – Cruz and Rubio are eligible

Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research Service, addressed the question in his “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement” of November 14, 2011. Maskell’s review is a slam-dunk rebuttal to the Apuzzo’s eligibility arguments. Here are excerpts:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

There appears to be very little scholarly or legal dispute as to the British common law applicable in England and in the American colonies with respect to those born “on the soil.” As to those children born in the geographic boundaries of the country, even of alien parents, the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, citing the British decision in  Calvin’s Case reported by Lord Coke, found that such persons were, under British common law, considered “natural born” subjects (with minor exceptions for children born of foreign diplomatic personnel or of hostile military forces in occupation, that is, those not “under the jurisdiction” of that host country). This rule of law, noted the Court, applied to the American colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence and, significantly, “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ….”

Sandford concluded that all persons born in the United States, even of alien parents who were only here temporarily, had “natural born” citizenship status under English common law, carried forward in the laws in all of the original thirteen states after independence, and then under the laws and constitutional provisions of the United States …

The Supreme Court of the United States, in its landmark opinion on birthright citizenship authored by Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, citing both the common law and numerous legal precedents in the United States, explained in 1898 that a child born of alien parents within the country and subject to its jurisdiction (that is, whose parents are not diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or troops in hostile occupation) is considered a “natural born” citizen (in the United States) or subject (in England),58 as that term has been used over the centuries in England and the United States…

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark thus concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment “affirms” the common law rule of “citizenship by birth within the territory,” even if one is born of alien parents in this country, and approved of the characterization of the children of such resident aliens as “natural born” citizens of the United States.

From examination of historical documents, it appears that the term “natural born” as it related to citizenship under English law and jurisprudence was a term widely known and used in the American colonies in the 1700’s, and was employed in the context and understanding of British common law as well as British statutory law.

Blackstone explained that “natural born” subjects in England and the American colonies included all those born “in” the lands under British sovereignty. Concerning specifically the issue of children born abroad of English subjects, Blackstone explains clearly that such children are then (in 1765) considered under the law of England as “natural born” subjects, and have been considered as such for most purposes since at least the time of Edward III (1350)…

Furthermore, and on a more basic level, the influence of the work of Vattel on the framers in employing the term “natural born” in relation to domestic citizenship within the Constitution is highly speculative at best, is without any direct historical evidence, and is contrary to the mainstream principles of constitutional interpretation and analysis within American jurisprudence.

Although the Supreme Court has not needed to rule specifically on the presidential eligibility clause … numerous federal cases, as well as state cases, for more than a century have used the term “natural born citizen” to describe a person born in this country and under its jurisdiction, even to parents who were aliens in the U.S.

… no holding in any case in federal court has ever established a “two citizen-parent” requirement, or other requirement of lineage or bloodline, for a native born U.S. citizen to be eligible for the Presidency.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the residency requirement.

The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States … is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents.

The legal issues regarding “natural born” citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.

The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicates that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as native born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.

Conclusion

Based upon the legal arguments on both sides, I think a court would rule Cruz and Rubio are ineligible. I also think no ordinary voter can file a lawsuit that will get a court to hear this matter. I think only a candidate like Trump, Hillary, or Bernie can file a lawsuit that would cause a court to hear arguments on eligibility.

97 thoughts on “Cruz and Rubio are “eligible” to be president”

  1. What about the federal law requiring the registration at the consulate of the birth in a foreign country by. A US citizen?

    1. Dear Bill,

      Cruz qualified as a "natural born citizen" by birth but government rules required him to fill out a government form to make it formal.

      If Cruz or Rubio were ineligible then Trump or Bush would have already acted on this option. Trump's attorneys concluded Cruz is eligible. Bush's attorneys likely did the same thing regarding Rubio, since the only way Bush can get more votes is to dispose of Rubio.

      Legal theory is one thing. There are lots of theories. The only theory that matters is the one that will prevail in court. No theory can win by attempting to stand on the Constitution alone. Case law is critical.

      I don't do legal debates because I am not a lawyer. Good lawyers have done the hard work. I read legal opinions and figure out which argument will win in court.

      Catyal and Clement, and especially Maskell's on case law, demonstrate the obstacles any lawsuit must overcome to prove Cruz or Rubio are ineligible. Their legal arguments will overwhelm all counter arguments in a court.

      Therefore, Cruz and Rubio are eligible to be president.

      1. Mr Ed,

        You cite the Naturalization Act of 1790 That was repealed due to The verbiage , Natural born Citizen clause, And it was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795 to say. "Citizen", What is naturalized cannot be natural born…

        1. You're right the Naturalization Act of 1790 was replaced in 1795 (and several times since) and "natural born" language hasn't appeared in any law since 1790. Neither the Constitution nor any stature since 1790 defines it.

          BUT that misses the point. The Naturalization Act of 1790 is important NOT because it's the current law BUT because it was drafted only 3 years after the Constitution.

          Did you know that 8 of the 11 member Constitutional Committee tasked with drafting that part of the Constitution also served in the First Congress and ALL 8 voted for the the Naturalization Act of 1790? Also President Washington (recipient of John Jay's letter) signed it into law. How does that not reflect their intent as to meaning only three years earlier?

          Neither the Naturalization Act of 1795 nor any subsequent statute defines "natural born citizen" Nothing in the Naturalization Act of 1795 states they are not.

          Some claim the change in 1795 was because Madison five years later found "the mistake" in the 1790 law. Yet there is no record of that in the legislative history.

          Lastly, Ted Cruz was by law a "citizen at birth." He did not have to be and never was naturalized.

        2. Mr. Berry,

          I will not address the CRS Memo or the HLR article because in my research the “lawyers” in these articles run around the topic spouting legalese and by the time they are done the average Joe is lost and they just agree because they don’t know any better. That tactic does not work on me because I have spent at least three thousand hours researching this topic in my spare time over the last seven years. In my experience just because an article has many legal references doesn’t mean it is correct or the references are of any value.

          I will however present a couple of key facts on the issue.

          1. A foreign born wife until 1924 automatically became a citizen of the United States when she married a U.S. citizen.(Cable Act)

          2. A child born in the United States in 1790 was born to TWO citizen parents. That child was a natural born citizen. (Vattel “The Law of Nations” 1758)

          3. A child born abroad to a citizen father who had been a resident of the United States could have a child and that child would be a naturalized citizen. That child would also be born of TWO citizen parents because of fact 1. This citizenship was made available by Congresses exercise of Art I Sec 8 powers to Create an Uniform Rules of Naturalization. (Rogers v Bellei 1971 SCOTUS)

          4. The only other way to become a citizen of the United States in 1790 was to have been a citizen of one of the many states before the adoption of the Constitution. This was a one-time naturalization via the ratification of the Constitution. These people were also the recipients of the grandfather clause within Art II Sec I Cl 4 under the statement "or a citizen of the United States at the adoption of this Constitution". (Justice Story “Commentaries on the Constitution)

          5. Ted Cruz could not have been a citizen if he had been born before 1934. Mothers could not provide citizenship at all till then. (Rogers v Bellei 1971 SCOTUS)

          6. Marco Rubio could not have been a citizen if he had been born before 1866. Children born of aliens had no claim to citizenship till the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Marco uses the same law to be a citizen that an anchor baby or tourist baby.

          In your article you claim that Mr. Apuzzo didn’t address the CRS memo and the HLR article yet you don’t go back and examine Mr. Apuzzo’s response to both of those articles.

          HLR http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-n

          CRS Memo: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-o

          This subject is a very simple one, here is a short and sweet break down of the, who, what, where, when and how of this issue.

          What is the term: natural born Citizen Art II Sec I Cl 5 US Constitution 17 Sept 1787 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents
          What is the definition of natural born Citizen: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

          Where did it come from:

          http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of

          When did the founders get a copy of Vattel: December 1775

          http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/0

          When was the term naturels translated to natural born: July 27, 1781

          http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:…

          By whom: Charles Thomson http://www.charlesthomson.com/

          Who asked for nbC to be the requirement: John Jay

          http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/jay….

          To whom did he make this recommendation: George Washington

          http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/

          When did he ask for it and how: 25 July 1787 "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…"

          http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/item?mode=

          How do we know Washington received the letter: 2 Sept 1787 "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter,3 and with best wishes for Mrs Jay, and great affection for yourself I am—Dear Sir Yr Most Obedt Servt"

          http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington

          Finally I leave with this. This is Justice Story's commentaries on the Constitution on the topic of Art II Sec I Cl 5. and the admission of "Naturalized” citizens to be President in the interim Page 332 Paragraph 1473. https://books.google.com/books?id=1CATAAAAYAAJ&am

          Here are some articles on the topic you need to read.

          Breckinridge Long – A “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution https://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-

          June 14, 1967 House Congressional Record Page 15875 George Romney http://www.lojack12.com/Constitution/george_romne

          Some more information
          http://www.elementarycatechism.com/

          “The original 1828 standard used to teach the Constitution to school children for decades – now again enhanced with many helpful notes and references. Newly Edited this year [2014]. This is a unique product with powerful arguments related to restoring lawful government. It is appropriate for children of all ages. Even grown attorneys and judges can understand it. This is rich food for productive thought about self government and Liberty. We have received many accolades for the 1993 version and now have worked to improve it and make it even more accessible. It is also supplemented by our extensive free web content. Please read our PREVIEW to get an idea of how easily you can learn the Constitution and teach the entire family.”

          http://www.lawbookexchange.com/pages/books/61058/

          Recognition of the U.S. Constitution's importance increased dramatically in 1826 due to the deaths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the election of President Andrew Jackson and the jubilee celebration of the Declaration of Independence. At this time, a period when public schools were increasing in number, educators responded with coursework that promoted the virtues of the Constitution to the nation's youth. Arthur J. Stansbury, a Presbyterian minister known for his political speeches, wrote one of the most popular textbooks used in the schools. Cast in the form of questions and answers in a chronological explanation of the Constitution, his "catechism" endowed patriotism with moral virtues in his depiction of the nation's "highly favored" birth-right. "It is a tribute to Stansbury, and to the document that he explicated, that so many subsequent scholars have followed the pedagogical path that he blazed." –JOHN R. VILE, XIX-XX – See more at:

          http://www.lawbookexchange.com/pages/books/61058/

          Here is what this book says about the requirement to be born IN the United States to be President. See the bottom of page 48 to the top of page 49 http://constitution.org/cmt/stansbury/elementary_

          The Constitution of the United States Defined and Carefully Annotated

          By George Washington Paschal 1868

          See page 169 https://books.google.com/books?id=wxo6AQAAIAAJ&am

          Natural born Citizen-Not made by law or otherwise, but born.

          As to Vattel and his influence on early American law
          https://books.google.com/books?id=DeyiAAAAMAAJ&amhttp://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000883https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7PiHOIxUpX8C&… http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0172

          If the term natural born citizen means anything more (less restrictive, more inclusive) than a child born IN the United States to TWO citizen parents then why did the Congress attempt eight times between 2003-2008 to meet those more inclusive meanings? Below are those eight attempts.

          11 June 2003 H.J.R 59 [1] Vic Snyder AR “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”

          3 September 2003 H.J.R 67[2] John Conyers MI “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.”

          15 September 2004 H.J.R. 104[3] Dana Rohrabacher CA “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”

          4 January 2005 H.J.R. 2[4] John Conyers MI “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.”

          1 February 2005 H.J.R. 15[5] Dana Rohrabacher CA “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”

          14 April 2005 H.J.R. 42[6] Vic Snyder AR “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”

          28 February 2008 S.2678[7] Claire McCaskill MO as part of a military funding bill “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.”

          In defense of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause but getting the definition incorrect:

          25 February 2004 S. 2128[8] Don Nickles OK “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President”

          I’m sure this is a lot of information to take it. I have tons more of this historical information on the subject that doesn’t agree with the story of the “Current historical scholars”. In my opinion Katyal, Clement, and Maskell have an agenda and so do most people who attempt to change the meaning from Vattels definition.

  2. Ed, please get your facts straight.

    Although the term "natural born citizen" was, unfortunately, not defined in the Constitution, our founding fathers based it on The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19. At that time this summary of laws written in 1758 was understood and recognized as the definitive source of law.

    Under the Law of Nations a natural born citizen is a person born in the country (within its jurisdiction) of two parents who are both citizens at the time of his birth. Cruz was born in Canada, which is not part of the United States. Therefore, he may have been a citizen when born, but not a natural born citizen. When Chester Arthur was born, his father was a Canadian citizen. Therefore he was not eligible to be president. Knowing this, he attempted to destroy his birth records.

    Even if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, his father was not an American citizen. Therefore, Obama is not eligible to be president.

    This is very simple and not rocket science. Why do people have so much trouble understanding it now? And why do they try to change the definition? Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can change the definition. Congress tried to do so by the Naturalization Act of 1790. There was an uproar, and that law was overturned shortly thereafter.

    1. Dear Lynn,

      Actually, we agree on the "facts" but we disagree on the interpretation of the facts.

      As I said in my article, I don't debate law. I interpret it. As a physicist, I have consulted for lawyers for about 45 years and been an expert witness in many trials, even a very high-profile murder trial. I have never been on the losing side of a legal trial because I understand how law works and I always tell the truth.

      Here's what I wrote in the conclusion of my article:

      Based upon the legal arguments on both sides, it's clear the opinions of Katyal, Clement, and Maskell, would prevail in any court that might rule on eligibility.

      That is all that matters. Unless you or anyone else can write a rebuttal to what these three lawyers have written that can prevail in court, then you have no case.

      We are talking about matters of law, In law, it does not matter what you think, or how sincere you are in your belief, or how long you argue. The only thing that matters is whether you have an argument that can prevail in court. So far, you have not done this.

    2. Lynne, have you read Vattel's Law of Nations? If so, surely you know Section 215, which states in pertinent part,

      "It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens?… By the LAW OF NATURE alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him."

      The "(§ 212)" referenced by Vattel is the section on natural born citizens. He specifically included such as among "all their rights" of a foreign born child.

      In fact, the Naturalization Act of 1790 is basically a restatement of §§ 212, 215, 216 and 217 of Vattel's The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19.

      1. 215 refers to 212 in the rights of citizens. It doesn't however refer to the distinct subset of citizens which are the natives or natural born citizens who are born in the country of which the parents are citizens.

        The argument that a child born abroad to citizen parents is the same is a citizen born in the country to citizen parents makes no sense. If that was the case why would Vattel define a specific subset of citizen?

        Citizens 212 can be made via birth by being born IN the country of which the parents are citizens (natural born Citizen), or by being born abroad to a citizen father not in the service of our country 215 or in the service of our country 217. For children born abroad OUR laws dictate they are treated under 214 (naturalization). Children born at sea 216 are as well treated under section 214 and required to follow the rules of naturalization.

        Rogers v Bellei 1971.

        The Supreme Court has held that a child born abroad is NOT under the jurisdiction of the United States nor are they naturalized in the United States therefore they are not a 14th Amendment first sentence citizen of the United States.

        "Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States," and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished. Pp. 401 U. S. 820-836."

        They acquire that citizenship via Art I Sec 8 powers of congress to "Create an Uniform Rules of Naturalization" and do so in what they coined as "Congressional Generosity". The minority opinion disagreed on the position of the 14th Amendment and it's effect on a child born abroad however they did not disagree that a child born abroad was a naturalized citizen. This thought is best captured in this part of the dissenting opinion.

        "Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship

        Page 401 U. S. 840

        under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. It provided in part:

        "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

        1 Stat. 103, 104. This provision is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a "Rule of Naturalization" shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization. However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649(1898):"

        The exact same statute, INA sec 301 (7) now (g) that Ted acquired his citizenship in 1970 was in force at the time that this case was argued and applicable to Bellei in 1971. As a matter of fact there was not a change in this section of the statute till 1978.

        The Supreme Court of the United States when using the term natural born Citizen has universally used the definition of a child born IN the United States to citizen parents.

  3. The Harvard Law Review article relies heavily on the REPEALED Naturalization Act of 1790 and the definition of "natural born Citizen" based on British Common Law. If "natural born Citizen" was strictly based on British Common Law, our Constitution would state that no one but a natural born "subject" could be president.

    To make my point, if you search "British subject", Wikipedia will explain that the United Kingdom did not recognize the term "British citizen" until 1949. If you check where the word "citizen" is derived from you will find it is Latin and French. Wikipedia states that Vattel's Law of Nations was translated into English in 1760, based on the French original in 1758. The word "citizen" rather than "subject" in our Constitution should have made it clear to the writers of this article that our Founding Fathers were relying on Vattel's definition of "natural born Citizen" instead of the British Common Law's definition.

    For the writers of this article to claim the Naturalization Act of 1790 still has relevance after it has been repealed and made null and void by Congress is, in my opinion, an act of deception. It should, again, be obvious to the authors of this article that Congress realized they made a mistake with the definition of "natural born Citizen" in the law and corrected that mistake by repealing it. The writers of this article are trying to make substance of something that does not exist!

    The authors of this article and Congressional Research Service reports by others want us to believe that “natural born Citizen” and citizens of the United States at birth mean the same thing.

    In this article, the writers claim the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth but fail to disclose what those relevant materials consist of. In a footnote, the writers reference 8 U.S.C. 1401(g). This law lists (a) through (h) categories of those who are citizens at birth of the United States. Since the writers want us to believe there are only two classifications of US citizens (citizens at birth and citizens through the naturalization process) it can only be deducted that citizens at birth listed in this law are automatically “natural born Citizens” too.

    If you go through this (a) through (h) list of citizens at birth you will find that the vast majority of US citizens in this country do NOT make the list. How can it be argued that children born in this country to US citizen parents (that’s you and me) are NOT considered, by law, to be citizens at birth of the United States? If Congress would have included an (i) category stating that children born in the US to US citizen parents are US citizens at birth I would have to concede to the authors of this article and agree that ALL US citizens at birth are “natural born Citizens”.

    Since Congress did NOT include this (i) category and no one (including the writers of this article) can argue that this classification of citizenship are NOT United States citizens at birth, it can only be concluded that there is a third classification of US citizenship. This higher degree classification of citizen is the “natural born Citizen” defined by Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett.

    Think about it. The Founding Fathers demanded that a President have the highest degree of allegiance to the United States possible. Would this allegiance more likely be achieved by being born and raised in the US by citizen parents with traditional American values or would it more likely be achieved by the lower bar standards the writers of this article proclaim? A look at our present President should answer that question swiftly!

  4. Please show me where Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark specifically stated Wong Kim Ark was a "natural born Citizen"?

  5. Because I am a constitutional conservative, I question why people would support a presidential candidate without first analyzing their eligibility.

    There are two distinctly different types of citizenship classifications related to holding the office of president and a member of congress. Congress members must be US citizens for up to nine years to meet requirements to be a candidate. Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states “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;….” Our Founding Fathers knew, because of the age of the newly formed United States, that a “natural born Citizen” would not be possible at the time of the Constitution’s adoption; no “natural born Citizen” of the US would meet the minimum thirty-five age requirement. This wording by the Founding Fathers coincides with the Minor v. Happersett ruling that defines a “natural born Citizen” as the offspring born in a country to parents who are its citizens. They knew it was paramount to have a president of unwavering allegiance. This ruling’s definition has never been court challenged or overruled.

    It is obvious that when Senator Cruz was born in Canada his father was a Cuban citizen. Governor Jingal and Senator Rubio’s parents were not yet naturalized US citizens at the times of their birth. They are “anchor babies” who were born to foreign citizens legally residing in the US. Senator Cruz claims he is a “natural born Citizen” according to Title 8 USC 1401(g). This law describes those who are “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”. According to this law, Cruz is eligible to be a senator or representative only, but not president. There is nothing in this law or any other law not repealed that associates or links the Supreme Court’s definition of “natural born Citizen” to “citizens of the United States at birth”. (The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Any mention of “natural born Citizen” was removed in the 1795 Act.) Anyone interpreting this statute claiming “natural born Citizen” and “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth” mean the same thing is jumping to a conclusion and bending the law as it was written. The Supreme Court has never applied the term “natural born Citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

    The 2011 Congressional Research Service report by Jack Maskell fails to disclose that his “British Common Law” theory definition of “natural born Citizen” was completely contrary to the nine justices’ adoption of Vattel’s “Law of Nature” theory definition in Minor v. Happersett. He claims the definition of “natural born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett to be merely dictum. Mr. Maskell, in his report, omits the findings in Ogileve Et Al., Minors v. United States, where Justice Breyer states that when the Court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, then that reason is not simply dictum. He failed to reveal that the words “natural born Citizen” were removed when the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795. The CRS report by Jack Maskell shows itself to be nothing more than a biased opinion. A CRS report by a legislative lawyer does not overrule or overturn the unanimous Supreme Court meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett.

    Congress made an unconstitutional resolution to make McCain, who was born in another country, eligible to run for president. That action confirmed that Congress acknowledged the definition of “natural born Citizen” given by the Supreme Court. Since Congress made this resolution for McCain, they would have to again make an unconstitutional resolution for Canadian-born Cruz. Congress does not have the authority to amend the US Constitution through a simple resolution!

    From 2002 through 2007, Democrats in Congress introduced numerous bills to amend the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution. At least one of these six or seven attempts involved removing the words “natural born Citizen” and inserting “must be a citizen for twenty years”. These efforts by the Democrats were all made in advance of Obama’s presidency.

    Actions by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have demonstrated that they have adopted the Supreme Court’s definition of “natural born Citizen” and tried to change it to fit their agendas. Congress would not have taken those steps if the Title 8 USC 1401 law applied to a “natural born Citizen”. Why does the media, including constitutional conservative websites, both political parties, and most of the populous, continue to acknowledge ineligible presidential candidates?

    I could never vote for a candidate who doesn't qualify, especially one who has already taken a sworn oath to “support and defend” the US Constitution and then not abide by it. I cannot support a political party, organization, or person that acknowledges or recognizes an ineligible presidential candidate who does not meet constitutional requirements.

    What could happen in September of 2016 if Democrats or the Constitution Party challenges the constitutional eligibility of an ineligible Republican Party nominee for president? How many of the 50 Secretaries of the State does it take to lose an election by their ensuring only eligible candidates’ names are placed on a voting ballot?

    There is absolutely no reason to acknowledge a presidential candidate who does not meet the Constitutional requirement set forth in Article II Section I Clause 5 that is defined by the US Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett. There is no excuse to accept a candidate for President that does not meet ALL but the highest of standards!

    1. Your assertion that, "I could never vote for a candidate….who has already taken a sworn oath to “support and defend” the US Constitution and then not abide by it" would suggest that you have never voted in an American election.

      EVERY member of Congress, EVERY president, and EVERY justice on the SCOTUS bench, have done precisely that, on a monthly — perhaps even weekly basis. At least 70% of all agencies, bureaus, departments, programs and regulations promulgated and funded by Congress and U.S. presidents today, are *nowhere authorized* by us in the U.S. Constitution.

      The same can be said for EVERY 'foreign deployed' employee of the U.S. military industry. Not a single foreign war in which the U.S. war industry has involved itself has met the U.S. Constitution's tests in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10-16, for the existence and deployment of military forces. Thus, every swaggering officer or military foreign 'deployee' is a partner in massive criminal enterprise. As with the plundering, swaggering troops of the Roman Empire over the known world of its orbit and time.

      In terms of adhering to the Constitution — with the important, glaring exception of his Israel-first Neocon allegiance — Ted Cruz is the most intellectually and morally qualified candidate for the 2016 presidential race.

      The 'birther' issues were a Red Herring with B. Hussein Osama, as they are a silly rabbit-trail with Cruz. The single constitutional lacuna displayed by Cruz, as I said, is his shilling for Israel — a foreign country — in the face of the Constitution. But every candidate in the race today, does the very same so that issue is apparently off the table in presidential races, at any rate.

  6. Ed, please list the court cases, not personal opinions, that declare "natural born Citizen" and citizen at birth of the United States mean the same thing.

  7. Ed, please explain to me why, by law, children born in the United States to US citizen parents are NOT citizens at birth of the United States?

  8. I hope you know more about weather than you do "natural law," which is the real foundation for "natural born," not a repealed immigration and naturalization act or today's naturalization bastardizations….

    Shameful that someone admittedly ignorant on the matter would issue an opinion pieces based solely upon the known bullshit from the Harvard buddies awaiting political appointment from the subject of their joint opinion. Everyone willing to lie and quote the lies of others to erase the NBC clause will burn in the end… of their own doing. Harvard was hired to clear Cruz, Rubio and Obama…. and in so doing, make it possible for any of 30 million undocumented aliens in America to seize the White House. You are their stooge Doc!

    TRUTH is in "natural law" not the Harvard play pen for misfits.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams2

    1. Dear JB,

      Your ad hominem attacks prove you don't know how to engage in legal debate.

      I studied your article before I wrote mine. Sorry, but your article is not as convincing as the articles by the lawyers I referenced. Maskell rebutted your positions and you did not even reference his work.

      The default legal position is Cruz and Rubio are eligible until someone proves otherwise. No one has proven otherwise.

      I claim neither you nor anyone else can prevail in a lawsuit to prove Cruz or Rubio ineligible. Now go out and prove me wrong.

      1. Looks like you are getting creamed here. On your own site no less. It's not the point of proving you wrong, it's just that you can't SEE what is wrong.

        1. Dear Beano,

          Whether in science or in law, it is crucial to follow the rules of argument. In both science and law, the burden of proof is on the side that proposes the hypothesis.

          The ineligibles have a hypothesis that Cruz and Rubio are ineligible. That's all the have. A hypothesis.

          The null hypothesis, or default position, is both Cruz and Rubio are eligible until proven ineligible. The burden of proof is on the ineligible side. (You are innocent until proven guilty.)

          The only way to test a legal hypothesis is to go to court.

          Why have the ineligibles not tested their case to court? If they really believed they had a case, they would act on it. Cruz and Rubio provide them with the perfect test cases to resolve this issue once and for all.

          The ineligibles have wasted almost a year and soon we will begin elections. The ineligibles are morally obligated to test their case before Republicans nominate the president and VP choices. But the ineligibles, who consider themselves as moral, have failed to act according to their own beliefs and principles.

          Never before have the ineligibles had such a perfect opportunity. Yet they won't act on it. Until they act to put their idea to test in court, the default side wins. Cruz and Rubio are eligible by default.

          Bottom line at the present is: They lose. I win.

          However, and this is the most important part of my answer. My goal is to find truth and I provide this discussion to help us all find truth. When proper evidence shows I am wrong, I will admit I am wrong. That is the scientific method and the only way to find truth.

  9. Revised from earlier comment

    The articles by Katyal, Clement, and Maskell rely heavily on the REPEALED Naturalization Act of 1790 and the definition of "natural born Citizen" based on British Common Law. If "natural born Citizen" was STRICTLY based on British Common Law, our Constitution would state that no one but a natural born "subject" could be president.

    To make my point, if you search "British subject", Wikipedia will explain that the United Kingdom did not recognize the term "British citizen" until 1949. If you check where the word "citizen" is derived from you will find it is Latin and French. Wikipedia states that Vattel's Law of Nations was translated into English in 1760, based on the French original in 1758. The word "citizen" rather than "subject" in our Constitution should have made it clear to this group of lawyers that our Founding Fathers were relying on Vattel's definition of "natural born Citizen" instead of the British Common Law's definition.

    For these lawyers to claim the Naturalization Act of 1790 still has relevance after it has been repealed and made null and void by Congress five years later is, in my opinion, an act of deception. It should, again, be obvious to them that Congress realized they made a mistake with the definition of "natural born Citizen" in the law and corrected that mistake by repealing it. They are trying to make substance of something that does not exist!

    The authors of these Congressional Research Service reports want us to believe that “natural born Citizen” and citizens of the United States at birth mean the same thing. In their writings they claim that relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth but fail to disclose what that relevant material consists of.

    They make mention of 8 U.S.C. 1401. This law lists (a) through (h) categories of those who are citizens at birth of the United States. Since the attorneys want us to believe there are only two classifications of US citizens (citizens at birth and citizens through the naturalization process) it can only be deducted that citizens at birth listed in this law are automatically “natural born Citizens” too.

    If you go through this (a) through (h) list of citizens at birth you will find that the vast majority of US citizens in this country do NOT make the list. How can it be argued that children born in this country to US citizen parents (that’s me) are NOT considered, by US statute, to be citizens at birth of the United States? Since the US government does not acknowledge these children as citizens at birth, these children are NOT natural born citizens. If Congress would have included an (i) category stating that children born in the US to US citizen parents are US citizens at birth I would have to concede to Katyal, Clement, and Maskell and agree that ALL US citizens at birth are “natural born Citizens”. Since Congress did NOT include this (i) category and no one (including Katyal, Clement, and Maskell) can make a convincing argument that children born in the United States to US citizen parents are NOT United States citizens at birth, it can only be concluded that there are two levels within the category of citizens at birth.

    The highest level category of citizen at birth (pure-bred) is defined by Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett where he states “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” The lower level of citizens at birth are those described by Justice Waite where he says “Some authorizes go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” These are the citizens at birth that are described, by law, in Title 8 U.S.C. 1401. Katyal, Clement, and Maskell fail to acknowledge Justice Waite’s two separate levels of citizens at birth.

    Think about it. The Founding Fathers demanded that a President have the highest degree of allegiance to the United States possible. Would this allegiance more likely be achieved by being born and raised in the US by citizen parents with traditional American values or would it more likely be achieved by the lower bar standards the group of lawyers proclaims? A look at our present President should answer that question swiftly!

    1. JK,

      Reliance on Naturalization Act of 1790 is not that it is law but was drafted only 3 years after the Constitution AND voted for by ALL 8 members Constitutional Committee tasked with drafting that part of the Constitution that also served in the First Congress. It was also read and signed in law by George Washington.

      They all got it wrong? The people in charge of drafting the very language at issue!

      I too have read the "mistake" claim as to the Naturalization Act of 1790 but have found no reliable source and it's not mentioned in the legislative history. It could just as easily been for style or other reason since being an nbc isn't an immigration issue.

      You are correct that most current scholars do not give any weight to Justice Waite's dicta in Minor v. Happersett. That's because that part of the opinion was nonbinding dicta and not holding. It wasn't binding law then or now.

      There has never been a SCOTUS holding on natural born citizen.

      The Minor case, which basically opined Ms. Minor, as a woman, could run for president but she could not vote for a woman, was overturned by the 19th Amendment. It has also been mentioned in SCOTUS cases as a disfavored case. It'd dicta is just that… dicta.

      As for Vattel's Law of Nations, you can't rely on Section 212 but ignore 215. Well I guess you can but you shouldn't.

      BTW the term "natural born citizen" did appear until the 1797 English edition of Vattel. Ten years AFTER the Constitution.

      1. But the book in French was in the hands of men who could read French in 1775 (12 years before the Convention) when three copies were sent from Charles Dumas to Ben Franklin. One of those men Mr. Charles Thomson was the secretary of the Congress from 1774-1788 where translating items for the Congress was one of his jobs. In 1781 (6 years before the convention) in the Congressional record you can find the term in question "naturels" translated to "natural born" by Mr. Thomson.

        So is it a stretch to say that although the definition while not put on paper in English till 1797 might have been translated by the man in congress at least partially responsible for translating to be read or translated to "natural born Citizen"? In that Continental Congress in 1775 when Vattels books arrived was none other than John Jay and George Washington.

    2. JK said,

      "If you go through this (a) through (h) list of citizens at birth you will find that the vast majority of US citizens in this country do NOT make the list. How can it be argued that children born in this country to US citizen parents (that’s me) are NOT considered, by US statute, to be citizens at birth of the United States?"

      OK, let’s read the statute. Section 8 USC 1401 states, in part,: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;. . .”

      Now, you don’t have to answer right away so you can think about it but are you a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? I really, really hope that you say, “Yup.” Because if you say, “Nope”, then you are not a citizen, right, even though you say you are?

      If you think about it (and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here), a person born in Hawaii which is in the United States who has one parent who is a citizen of the United States is also included in subsection (a). Indeed, a person who is born in Arizona which is in the United States whose parents are not citizens of the United States is also included in subsection (a). In other words, it includes all children born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, including you.

      Congratulations, you have won the Emily Litella Prize. See http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/week

  10. Used with Mr. McKay's permission. A friend of mine has addressed this issue a little better than I can in a short time so I will post his findings on the topic.

    By Bruce G. McKay on Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 4:41pm

    Once again, this Presidential Campaign season, the electorate is being confronted with the Presidential eligibility issue. Republican candidates, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio, and until recently, Gov. Bobby Jindall, have questionable credentials with regards to the Constitution’s Article II requirements to be President. A number of articles by journalists, pundits and Professors have been written citing US statutory law and recounting a history of how the term natural born citizen has been interpreted here in the US purporting to show that the two Republican Senators are in fact constitutionally eligible to hold the highest office in the land. Missing from these missives, however, seems to be an attempt to understand the position taken on the nature of the citizenship of people like Senators Cruz and Rubio, by the one body constitutionally empowered to interpret Constitutional issues. The purpose of this editorial is to see what the Court’s point of view is on this matter.

    If there's a Constitutional question, then Article III Section 2 of the Constitution says "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact…" As the US Supreme Court itself says on its website "As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution." [See: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional…. In short, The United States Supreme Court is the one body constitutionally empowered to determine what's Constitutional in our system of government.

    Consequently, if there is a conflict between what’s said by the Court or its members and something stated in a blog, news article or even by a distinguished professor of law authoring an article in a prestigious law journal, the greater authority belongs to those declarations made by members of the Court, particularly those declarations made in the process of delivering a majority opinion in a case before the Court. As such, the Court has not only given us guidelines as to who are considered to be “natural born citizens” under the Constitution, but they have also made clear some of those who are NOT natural born citizens under the Constitution.

    I first of all want to address the matter of Ted Cruz’s citizenship. Most people will approach this from the standpoint that he doesn’t fit the profile of a “natural born citizen” arguing that he wasn’t born on US soil to two citizen parents [or in some quarters, simply not born to two citizen parents or to a citizen father]. Those taking the opposing position argue that since he became a citizen at birth under US statutory law that he never underwent naturalization and therefore must be a natural born citizen.

    There’s ample indication, however, that members of the US Supreme Court have consistently taken the position that foreign born children of US citizens who acquire their citizenship by means of Congressional enactments are considered by members of the Court to be “naturalized citizens.”

    Two cases in particular help to illustrate this point, Montana v. Kennedy along with Rogers v. Bellei. Those two Supreme Court cases along with the case of Zimmer v. Acheson which was decided in the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit demonstrate that statutory citizenship is in fact a form of “naturalized” citizenship.

    In the case of Montana v. Kennedy, the facts of the case were that Mauro Montana was born in Italy in 1906 to a father who was an Italian citizen and a mother who was a native-born US citizen. His mother brought him to the United States the year following his birth, he was never naturalized, and he resided in the US until he was ordered deported as an alien. His case came before the Supreme Court in 1961 which held that Mauro Montana was not a US citizen. [See: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/366/3

    By contrast, in the case of Rogers v. Bellei, the facts of the case were that Aldo Bellei was born in Italy in 1939 to a father who was an Italian citizen and a mother who was a native born US citizen. Further listed as a fact in the case opinion was that he “acquired United States citizenship at his birth under Rev.Stat. § 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 797, then in effect.” [See: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/8… (The issue before the Court was whether Bellei was subject to losing his citizenship because he hadn’t fulfilled the statute’s residency requirements, but the point is that the Court considered him to be a citizen.)

    The only difference in circumstances between the two men, born 33 years apart was that the amendment to the Rev.Stat. § 1993 that passed in 1934 allowed for citizenship to be conferred to children of US citizen mothers whereas previously it was only applicable to children of US citizen fathers.

    The case of Zimmer v. Acheson can shed some degree of understanding here on the meaning of the Rogers v. Bellei case and its relationship to the nature of the citizenship of Ted Cruz. In that case, Harry Ward Zimmer, who was born in Bavaria to a naturalized US citizen father, Werner Herman Zimmer, and a native-born US citizen mother was acknowledged by the court to have acquired his citizenship under Revised Statutes § 1993, the very same statute by which Aldo Bellei acquired his citizenship. Chief Judge Phillips, writing the opinion of the Court said “If Werner Herman Zimmer, by virtue of his naturalization on October 30, 1896, was a citizen of the United States on August 9, 1905, the date of the birth of Harry Ward Zimmer, then the latter, at the time of his birth, became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the foregoing statute, but his status as a citizen was that of a naturalized citizen and not a native-born citizen.” [See :https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/227742/zimmer-v-acheson-secretary-of-state/?q=Zimmer+v.+Acheson&order_by=score+desc&stat_Precedential=on%5D

    Returning to the Bellei case, Justice Blackmun, in delivering the majority opinion in the 1971 case of Rogers v. Bellei stated

    "But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

    [Citing Justice Gray’s opinion in the 1898 case of US v. Wong Kim Ark – See :https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649%5D He points out that the citizenship of the plaintiff, Aldo Bellei was “wholly statutory” observing

    “The plaintiff's claim thus must center in the statutory power of Congress and in the appropriate exercise of that power within the restrictions of any pertinent constitutional provisions . . . The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, "No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with.”

    [Citing Justice McReynolds’ majority opinion in the 1917 case of US v. Ginsberg – See :http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/243/472.html%5D The Court went so far as to point out that Bellei’s citizenship rested purely on a statute which rested purely on Congress’ power to “naturalize.” In short, but for the generosity of Congress passing enactments conferring citizenship at birth upon children born abroad to US citizens, those children would be considered aliens.

    Even those dissenting in the Bellei case were of a like opinion on the nature of Bellei’s citizenship. After noting that “Bellei became an American citizen under the terms of § 1993 of the Revised Statutes, as amended”, Justice Black stated, “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”

    He later continued in noting "All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization." And in commenting on the majority opinion, Justice Black observed, “The majority opinion appears at times to rely on the argument that Bellei, while he concededly might have been a naturalized citizen, was not naturalized "in the United States."." . . . So the principal dissenting opinion ALSO thought Bellei was “naturalized”.

    And finally, Justice Brennan opines

    “Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. . . . distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas…”

    There was NO difference of opinion amongst the members of the Court as to the mechanism by which Aldo Bellei acquired his citizenship. It was by Congress’ power to establish rules of “Naturalization” and as such, the entire Court considered him a “naturalized” citizen. The dispute among the members pertained to whether his citizenship enjoyed 14th Amendment protections, but not whether or not he was naturalized.

    That’s also consistent with Justice Gray’s opinion over 70 years earlier in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark when he stated

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, … by authority of Congress, exercised … by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens …”

    [See :https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649%5D That statement clearly indicates that children of citizens who are born outside US Territory, who gain their citizenship by Congressional statute are naturalized. In other words, simply having citizen parents isn’t enough to make a natural born citizen!

    As further evidence that Aldo Bellei was a “naturalized citizen”, please note that his citizenship was stripped from him for not complying with statutory residency requirements. In the 1949 case of Klapprott v. United States, Justice Black in delivering the judgement of the Court observed

    “To take away a man's citizenship deprives him of a right no less precious than life or liberty, indeed of one which today comprehends those rights and almost all others. . . . No such procedures could strip a natural-born citizen of his birthright or lay him open to such a penalty.”

    Klapprott was a naturalized citizen who stood to have his citizenship stripped from him in essence for failure to answer a complaint that his original oath of allegiance was false. Justice Hugo Black, addressing Kapprott’s circumstances, states that a “natural-born citizen” does NOT face the danger of having his citizenship stripped from him. [See :https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/601/case.html%5D

    In the Rogers v Bellei case, Aldo Bellei, like Ted Cruz, was born outside US territory. Aldo Bellei, like Ted Cruz, had a father who was NOT a US citizen. Aldo Bellei, like Ted Cruz, had a US citizen mother who provided a pathway to statutory US citizenship at birth. Aldo Bellei, was considered by the entire Court to be a naturalized citizen. If Aldo Bellei was a naturalized citizen, then Ted Cruz must also be a naturalized citizen. Naturalized ≠ Natural Born

    Part of the reason I spent so much of this writing on Ted Cruz’s circumstances is because it also furnishes the basis for the starting point on the nature of Marco Rubio’s and Bobby Jindall’s citizenship.

    Consider . . .

    No amendment to the US Constitution has been ratified that has changed either the requirements for the Presidency listed in article II of the Constitution or changed the definition of the meaning of “natural born citizen.” Therefore, what constitutes a “natural born citizen” today is the same thing that constituted a “natural born citizen” in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified. It's evident that if someone is a legitimate “natural born citizen” today, then they also would have been considered a legitimate “natural born citizen” when the Constitution was ratified in 1788.

    The unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Chief Justice Waite, in the case of Minor v. Happersett was that “natural born citizens” are “citizens.” This is borne out by his statement

    “…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens…”

    [See; https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/… It stands to reason then that if someone is not a citizen, then they are also not a natural born citizen.

    Justice Blackmun, in writing the opinion of the Court in the case of Rogers v. Bellei observed

    “The application of these respective statutes to a person in plaintiff Bellei's position produces the following results: … Not until 1934 would that person have had any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit. One may observe, too, that, if Mr. Bellei had been born in 1933, instead of in 1939, he would have no claim even today. Montana v. Kennedy, supra.”

    [See: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/8

    As we’ve seen, Ted Cruz’s citizenship was acquired by precisely the same mechanism as Aldo Bellei’s citizenship. If a natural born citizen today is the same as a natural born citizen was in 1788, and if someone whose nativity circumstances matching those of both Aldo Bellei and Ted Cruz wouldn’t even have been a citizen until 1934, how then could Ted Cruz be considered to be a “natural born citizen?” Answer: He couldn’t. QED

    So what about those born in the US without benefit of citizen parents who automatically become citizens under the 14th Amendment?

    As implied earlier, the 14th Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizens” or of the Presidential requirements of Article II sec. 1 cl. 5. Therefore, while the 14th Amendment may confer citizenship at birth to those who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for citizenship, it doesn’t confer the character of “natural born” citizenship upon those whose citizenship is wholly dependent upon the 14th Amendment.

    In the Wong Kim Ark decision in section V, Justice Gray states

    “The Civil Rights Act, passed at the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, began by enacting that:

    all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States . . . The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise, and perhaps unsafe, to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent Congress, framed the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . .”

    [See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169

    Consequently, the civil rights act of 1866, passed by Congress, which the 14th amendment codified into the Constitution, effectively naturalizes those covered by that act at birth. That’s why Justice Gray makes the point he does in Section VI that Congressional power to create citizens can only occur by its power to create a uniform rule of naturalization. Justice Gray is stating that it’s by means of Constitutional guidelines by which Congress, acting within its constitutional powers can legislatively declare an entire class of people to be naturalized citizens at birth.

    Based on the guidelines as laid out in section VI of the Wong Kim Ark decision by Justice Gray, those born on US soil without benefit of citizen parentage were made naturalized citizens at birth, by Congressional statute in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This was later elevated to a Constitutional right by the 14th Amendment.

    It should be noted that Justice Gray observed

    “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

    Consequently, according to both Justice Gray and Justice Waite, the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT address natural-born citizenship. Justice Gray also observes that

    “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment, … leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization…”

    The Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, does not change Congress’ Constitutional power over naturalization either. Thus, mere birth within the territory of the United States, without regard to the parentage of the child, is not sufficient by itself to make the child a “natural born” citizen.

    Indeed, despite the fact that Justice Gray spent a fair amount of time talking about “natural born subjects” in his case opinion, he does not declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen, but instead held that he was a “citizen” by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Gray indicated

    “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

    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.”

    [See :https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649%5D

    That holding was acknowledged in the 1967 case of Afroyim v. Rusk, by Justice Hugo Black delivering the opinion of the court who made the following observation about Justice Gray’s opinion in the US v. Wong Kim Ark case,

    “ … whether a person born in the United States to Chinese aliens was a citizen of the United States and whether, nevertheless, he could be excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act, 22 Stat. 58. The Court first held that, within the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States … The Court then held that Congress could not do anything to abridge or affect his citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall's well considered and oft-repeated dictum in Osborn to the effect that Congress, under the power of naturalization, has 'a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away,'…"

    [See :https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/387/253%5D

    Both the author of the opinion for the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark, as well as the author of another citizenship case opinion by the Supreme Court, roughly 70 years later, have indicated that the WKA opinion was about citizenship by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth amendment. Neither of them indicate that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born” citizen, only a “citizen.”

    Therefore, if Wong Kim Ark, born on US soil to parents who were not US citizens, was only a “citizen” by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, and not, at least according to any Supreme Court opinion I’ve been able to find, a natural born citizen, by the same token, neither Marco Rubio nor Bobby Jindal are anything more than “citizens” by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment.

    As pointed out earlier, based on both Justice Gray’s guidelines, and those which were reiterated by Justice Blackmun in Rogers v. Bellei, those born of citizen parents without benefit of being born on US soil were naturalized citizens at birth by congressional statute. Therefore, neither born on US soil alone nor born to citizen parents alone is sufficient to create a natural born citizen since in both instances, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, congressional action was necessary to naturalize each of those classes of people at birth.

    What then is a natural born citizen?

    As previously mentioned, Chief Justice Waite delivering the unanimous opinion of the Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett observed,

    “…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens . . .”

    [See; https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/… Simply put, a natural born citizen is one who is born in the United States to citizen parents.

    Every instance I’m aware of in which the Supreme Court has either indicated someone is a natural born citizen of a nation/state or eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, notably Ann Shanks in the case of Shanks v. Dupont [See :http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/28/242.html%5D, Kwock Jan Fat in the case of Kwock Jan Fat v. White [See: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/253/4… Marie Elg and “young” Steinkauler in the case of Perkins v. Elg [See :http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html%5D, and by implication, Virginia Minor in the aforementioned case of Minor v. Happersett, have been instances in which the person referred to by the Court was one who was born in the country to parents who were citizens.

    By that metric, neither Senator Ted Cruz nor Senator Marco Rubio are eligible to legitimately hold either the office of President or Vice-President of the United States.

  11. Cruz and Rubio certainly are not eligible. Copying from the Harvard Lie Review`s made up version of truth based upon the REPEALED Naturalization Act of 1790, does not lend you any credibility at all. Stop trying to perpetuate the shredding of our constitution.

  12. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    I have been fighting Obama for seven years. Obama is a usurper. A "Natural Born Citizen" is one born in a county to Parents who are both citizens themselves. This is established law. My favorite cite on the issue is Minor v Happersett, U.S. Supreme Court who affirmed this definition. ALL of the previous Presidents were born of two American Parents IN the US. Arthur and Obama,,who were both born with British Dual citizenship, did not meet the definition and therefore were never a bona-fide "President". One might say that the first (7) Presidents did not meet the definition but Article II, Sec. 1 Grandfathered them in. There is NO "President" Obama.
    http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-n

  13. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    There is a new development with Cruz. Cruz is now in danger of losing his US Senate seat. He has been requested to provide proof of his Mother's American Citizenship. It has been claimed that both of Cruz's parents naturalized as Canadians before Ted was born. This development would make Ted Cruz a "Natural Born Citizen" OF CANADA since he was born there. He would have absolutely NO ties to the USA if this is the case.

  14. Natural born citizens do not have to resort to the Naturalization Acts, such as the Naturalization act of 1790 or 1795, to prove they are Natural born citizens.

    Only those who are "naturalized citizens" must resort to Naturalization Acts to prove they are "citizens", but not natural born citizens.

  15. Pete, I don't know who Bruce G. McKay but I want to note what he wrote is thorough and correct BUT I disagree on his conclusion.

    I'll try to explain why with minimum legalize.

    First, there has never been a SCOTUS case on what is a natural born citizen, so while I disagree with Bruce, I cannot say he is wrong under current law or precedent, there is none. There is though dicta which seemingly favors his position but I hope to explain the perils of over-reliance on dicta.

    What is dicta? Easy answer is it is everything but the holding of a case. The holding being the decision on the specific issue the Court is addressing based on the specific facts of that case. For example, in Minor v. Happersett, at issue was… does the 14th amendment give female citizens the equal right to vote of men? The Court voted and unanimously voted “no.” It was after that vote that CJ Waite wrote his opinion. The opinion itself isn't voted on. Thus, the reasoning isn't binding, it is what lawyers call Obiter Dicta (Latin for a statement “said in passing”), or more commonly, dicta, and those parts of a court’s opinion that are not binding on lower courts or later Supreme courts. It is not precedent or law. Most importantly, a Justice knows this when writing an opinion. Dicta isn't intended to be a complete or whole answer on issues not before the Court but reasoning justifying the specific holding.

    Back to the Minor case, it was Minor (through her attorney) that argued in essence… his client could be president so surely Equal Protection Clause of the 14th gives her the right to vote for one. Waite's opinion was merely agreeing with the first part but disagreeing with the second part. Basically stating, 'while it is true…' He didn't intend to define nbc.

    That brings to the second problem with reliance on Minor now that we understand that dicta is only relevant to the issue at hand in the case. His use of the word “all.”

    Assume Minor was a female rose and her argument was that she's entitled to same rights of male plants. The first question CJ Waite would address is 'are female rose plants?' In that dicta he would state something like:

    '… It was never doubted that ALL roses are plant” and go on. BUT that doesn't mean (even as dicta opinion) that ONLY roses are plants.

    With the above in mind, let's look at the dicta so many birthers rely on…

    “… it was never doubted that ALL [note: not “only”] children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

    Some might say wait, he then writes, “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Ah-ha. But they'd be wrong.

    Those are bookend statements. There are citizens at birth, then and now, that by definition were not aliens or foreigners but weren't born in US of two US citizen parents.

    Waite dicta doesn't address that. He didn't need to for the Minor case. He moved on.

    A strict reading of the sentence “these were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” would suggest he's stating anyone not born an alien or foreigner is a natural born citizen.

    Well, Cruz was a citizen at birth. He was not an alien or a foreigner, so Waite considers him natural born. I could argue that BUT I understand dicta is dicta. So I won't harp on that point.

    The other ambiguity the SCOTUS will hopefully someday resolve is … what is meant by “natural.”

    In cases I've seen Justices often use natural and native interchangeably as though saying 'naturally' someone born here is a citizen. That has Feudal and common law roots. Other however, claim the Founders meant it in a Natural Law sense relying on Vattel.

    I'm in the latter group for two reasons. On his Law of Nations was a very influential book with the Founders and the Immigration Act of 1790 was basically, Vattel Section 212, 215, 216 and 217 codified. And BTW, Vattel recognized foreign born natural-born citizens (215).

    Bottom the Court needs to take a case to expressly define natural born citizen.

    1. If I told everyone that I was a "natural Hawaiian", what is your first emediate impression?

      This is not a trick question, simply answer the question from your first instinct of what you can gather from simply this description, whatever your first impression strikes you without second guessing your answer, put it down.

      This description is applicable to me personally so I will answer after sufficient responses are given…

      Any and all are welcome to respond…

  16. Why don't Ted prove he is eligible since we are saying he is not eligible? And if NOT proven, by default he is not eligible.

    The burden of proof lies with Ted now.

    1. Dear Beano,

      Neither law, nor science, nor the logic of Aristotle, require Cruz to "prove" his eligibility any more than he has already done.

      If someone accused you of a criminal infraction of the law, you would be innocent until proven guilty. Your accuser would need to provide evidence to support the accuser's hypothesis that you are guilty. If your accuser does not take you to court, you are innocent by default.

      I discuss this principle in my article "A Physics View of Climate Change." I use Einstein's Principle of Relativity as an example. Einstein understood he had the burden of proof. Therefore, he used his relativity hypothesis to make predictions. He recognized how the system works when he said, "Many experiments may prove me right but it takes only one to prove me wrong." Einstein recognized he could not merely rest with his claim about relativity. He had to take the initiative to offer a way others could test his hypothesis.

      Similarly, those who accuse Cruz or Rubio of being ineligible are obligated to test their hypothesis in court. Cruz and Rubio are eligible until someone proves them ineligible.

  17. John, I want to thank you for responding back to me .. However, I would like to know, how do you know ?, that Ted Cruz was never naturalized…

  18. You are wrong. Natural born citizen and citizen at birth are different. If not, why would the founders differentiate between the two? Cruz's parents became Canadian citizens according to Cruz senior and lived in Canada for 8 years. Now, if becoming a citizen of another country doesn't void your USA citizenship, Mrs. Cruz was suppose to register Ted's birth with the Canadian Ambassador to be registered. Never happened! Cruz senior didn't become an American citizen until 2005. NBC requires citizen parents, the s means more than one when I went to school. So, being born in Canada and coming here at 4y.o. he supposedly had dual citizenship. But, if his mother became a Canadian citizen, as Cruz senior stated, then Cruz is not even an American!

    1. Genevieve, Cruz says he was not naturalized and per his birth certificate he did not have to be. He was a citizen at birth. What makes you think he was?

    2.  

      'The applicable law for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time of the child's birth.' ") (quoting Ablang v. Reno, 52 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir.1995)

      ……..naturalization and derivative grants of citizenship by birth are both conferred by statutes, and are at root both naturalization proceedings. See Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, —-, —-, 118 S.Ct. 1428, 1432, 1446, 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998) (plurality opinion); Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles, 236 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1956) ("Section 1993 is therefore a naturalization law in the constitutional sense.").
      http://www.ecases.us/case/ca9/762811/99-cal-daily

  19. Pete, I disagree.

    If 215 created a subset, a lesser citizenship then Vattel had no reason to specifically refer back to Section 212.

    In 212 he writes, "As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." Notice how closely that parallels the language in 215, "By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the PLACE OF BIRTH PRODUCES NO CHANGE in this particular."

    Further, Natural Law was based on natural alliance to father, directly opposed to the existing Feudal system that demand loyalty to the king based on place of birth. Tying citizen to soil is an insult to the very nature of Natural Law and its concept of allegiance to family over being subjects based on soil.

    I've expand elsewhere the perils of placing too much reliance on dicta when the issue in none of the cases was a complete definition of nbc.

    I've read enough of the SCOTUS opinions to be confident of what their holding would be, Scalia has stated as much although he admits the issue has never been before the Court and thus briefs haven't been submitted. Thomas, who I owe for first getting me interested in Natural Law when he spoke to our Federalist Society when he was on the Appellate bench, specifically talked on 212 and 215. I know the more liberal Justices while have an expansive view though not based on Natural Law but the 14th, opinion. Roberts expansive view will on deferring to the more direct of popular voting for Electors, which wasn't the case at the founding. So my guess is a unanimous decision Ted is eligible if it goes there.

  20. John, In your last statement to me, You said,

    "Lastly, Ted Cruz was by law a "Citizen at birth", "By law", He did not have to be And never was Naturalized".

    Do you realize JohnThat a "citizen at birth", " By law", Is" naturalized"?.

    Congress was empowered by the Constitution to create " A uniform Rule of naturalization", In order to state health foreign-born person[s] Can become citizen[s] . And so are citizenship laws for the foreign-born are all naturalized laws.

    Anyone that has To cite a law ,Code or statute To prove He is a "citizen" Has been Naturalized by law code, statute, and has proven that he is not a natural born citizen, But rather a statutorily naturalized citizen", (SCOTUS) Words not mine.

    And of course naturalized citizens are not eligible to the office of President or vice president.

    SCOTUS Has stated in several citizenship cases over the last 200 yearsThat a foreign born child of a United States citizen Is statutorily " naturalized at birth" By " The generosity of government" Via are naturalization laws which can be found in U.S. Code.

    Why would they possibly Rule any differently just because the guy is Ted Cruz?.

  21. Ed, I think the problem is that you like Ted Cruz and want him to be president, so you are relying on someone's "legal opinion" when you should just be looking at the truth. It's interesting that other "legal opinions" differ from the one you adhere to.

    There will always be some who twist the truth by confusing definitions of terms for the unsuspecting. "Natural born citizen" and "citizen at birth" are two different terms. The framers of the Constitution specified "natural born citizen" in their presidential eligibility requirements. You don't have to be a high powered lawyer to understand this. You only have to look at the definitions of terms. Sorry, but according to this definition, Cruz is not eligible to be president.

    1. Dear Lynne,

      One logical error people make when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their opinion is to assume the messenger of the data has an ulterior motive.

      If you look at my website and read my political articles, you will see I am very clear that I am a "hat wearing" supporter of Donald Trump. So your hypothesis fails.

      As a supporter of Trump, I have an incentive to remove Ted Cruz from the race. But I don't lie to achieve my goals. I am first a scientist who seeks truth. Therefore, contrary to your suggestion, I am very objective in my analysis of this eligibility issue.

      The most important part of my argument derives from the scientific method:

      Anyone who proposes a hypothesis, like Cruz is ineligible, is obligated to test the hypothesis.

      While your side has made good arguments for your hypothesis that Cruz is ineligible, your side has failed to take its hypothesis to court to try to prove Cruz is ineligible. Until your side does this, Cruz is by default legally eligible. And I win and you lose.

  22. People have loyalty to their birthplace,

    The basis of the requirement of natural born citizen were made very clear by our founding fathers,

    It was to eliminate foreign influence at the highest level of government.

    The founding fathers intent was to ensure the security of our nation would not devolved to anyone with loyalties other than the United States of America.

    People don't understand that when the Constitution was written We were still under threat of invasion as was the case with the wars against Britain in 1812-1814 , Some 36 years after the revolution.

    The founders knew that Britain still held Quite a lot of influence over the new government of the United States and they needed to provide protection Against the influence and instill the Natural Born provision..

    It was made strict for a very good reason..

    Ted Cruz was born in Calgary Alberta Canada to a foreign born father from communist Cuba and the United States citizen parent..

    Ted Cruz father did not become naturalized " citizen", Add United States until 2005,

    Ted Cruz Did not Give up his citizenship to Canada Until May 2014 ,So, he could run for president of the United States. Ted Cruz was born abroad To American citizen parent.

    When two American citizen parents Give birth to a child born abroad are Required To file with the American Consulate or American embassy a Certificate consular report of birth abroad..( CRBA),

    After that report was filed Ted Cruz should have a certificate That proves That that report was filed..

    That provides the child with the right to enter the United States legally and become a naturalized citizen Only..

  23. It has been reported That Ted Cruz father A Cuban born ImmigrantAnd after receiving his education in the United States,

    Met Ted Cruz mother Eleanor And both Ted Cruz mother and Ted Cruz father went to Canada To work in the oil fields Ted Cruz father says he became a citizen of Canada There are no Documents that I know of at this time That show if his mother Eleanor, became a citizen of

    Canada,

    They lived both Ted Cruz mom and dad lived in Canada for 4 years And then had their son Ted Cruz , AKA Rafael Edward Cruz,

    Ted Cruz mom and dad remained in Canada another 4 years and then came back to the United States, Ted Cruz was 4 years old Approximately,

    There are two issues that are unclear,

    Whether it's one parent or two parents you are required to file A consular report of birth abroad

    ( CRBA) There is no record of that report.. Freedom of Information has requested the ( CRBA), But, Ted Cruz has denied Offering the information..

  24. You have already been proven wrong Mr. Berry.. Over and over. You are choosing not to understand it……….Just like your experts are intentionally lying or the most ignorant 'legal experts' to ever walk the fact of Earth.

    Your experts refer to Wong Kim Ark were Justice Gray says the following…………

    ""But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

    Surely you are able to see that the court PLAINLY states that the 'citizenship' of Children Born abroad is regulated by the power of Congress To NATURALIZE……….

    The court then for the next 100 years cites this statement by Justice Gray…….

    In Morrison v. California (1934) the court quoted that opinion verbatim.

    "But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

    And once again in Rogers v. Bellei (1971) the Court said:

    ""But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action"

    And again in Miller V. Albright (1998)

    There are "two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person "born in the United States, and subject to the *424 jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." 169 U. S., at 702.

    Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

    Your experts refer to Calvin's Case and Lord Cokes comments on it……

    Lord Coke commented in depth on this case and stated the following……. .http://files.libertyfund.org/files/911/0462-01_LFeBk.pdf(see page 208)

    There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a "subjectborn".

    1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.

    2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.

    And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one

    kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom

    Your 'experts' claim that Ted Cruz was a 'citizen at birth' never quite grasping that fact that they are made so by STATUTE ( 8 U.S.C. 1401) passed by Congress under their authority to 'make a uniform rule for naturalization…………..

    This is not even open to discussion among knowledgeable people.

    …naturalization and derivative grants of citizenship by birth are both conferred by statutes, and are at root both naturalization proceedings. See Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, —-, —-, 118 S.Ct. 1428, 1432, 1446, 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998) (plurality opinion); Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles, 236 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1956) ("Section 1993 is therefore a naturalization law in the constitutional sense.").
    http://www.ecases.us/case/ca9/762811/99-cal-daily

    And in Rogers v. Bellei, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who just 4 years earlier had written the majority opinion in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk, had the following observation to make of foreign-born children of US citizens; “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.

    In 1854 Horace Binney wrote an article pointing out that between the naturalization act of 1802 and 1854 Congress had failed to provide 'automatic naturalization' for children born abroad to American parents. Chief Justice William H . Taft provided a quote from it in the case of Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927 ):

    "It does not probably occur to the American families who are visiting Europe in great numbers, and remaining there frequently for a year or more, that all their children born in a foreign country are aliens, and when they return home will return under all the disabilities of aliens. Yet this is indisputably the case, for it is not worthwhile to consider the only exception to this rule that exists under the laws of the United States, viz., the case of a child so born whose parents were citizens of the United States on or before the 14th day of April, 1802."

    As for the 'NATURALIZATION ACT' of 1790, while once gain the title should make it perfectly clear what the statute is for, some people today like to claim is proves Congress 'defined' the term 'natural born'. This is an absurd claim on its face. And that is the position taken long ago on it.

    June 14, 1967 House Congressional Record Page 15875

    Thus the Act of March 26, 1790 would be unconstitutional if it attempted to enlarge the rights of a naturalized citizen to be equal to those of natural-born citizens under the Constitution.

    Although it is not within the power of Congress to change or amend the Constitution by means of definitions of languages used in the Constitution so as to mean something different than intended by the framers (amendments being governed by Article V) an argument might be advanced to the effect that the use of identical language by Congress substantially contemporaneously might be considered in later years by a court to reflect the same meaning of the same words by the framers of the Constitution; and under this argument to attach importance to the Act of congress of March 26, 1790 (1 stat 103).

    This argument fades away when it is found that this act used the term “natural-born” through inadvertence which resulted from the use of the English Naturalization Act (13 Geo. III, Cap 21 (1773) as a pattern when it was deemed necessary (as stated by Van Dyne) to enact a similar law in the United States to extend citizenship to foreign-born children of American parents. In the discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives in respect to the proposed naturalization bill of a committee composed of Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania, Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina and Andrew Moore of Virginia, Mr. Edamus Burke of South Carolina stated, “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done In the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III.” (See pp 1121, Vol 1 (Feb. 4, 1790) of Annals of Congress.) The proposed bill was then recommitted to the Committee of Hartley, Tucker and Moore, and a new bill containing the provision in respect to foreign-born children of American parentage was included, using the Anglican phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Manifestly, Mr. Burke had given the wrong reference to the Act of Parliament of the 12th year of William III which was an Inheritance law. But, it was a naturalization bill and the reference to the English acts shows the origin of the inadvertent error in using the term natural-born citizen instead of plain “citizen” came from copying the English Naturalization Act.

    Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.

    And that 'mistaken stataute' that was used as a Model?

    There were several naturalization statutes enacted by Parliament which “declared” or “deemed” persons born outside of the dominions of the King, whose parents were subjects, to be subjects. 29 Car II Cap. 6 (1676) related to children of subjects born during “the late trouble” In foreign countries between June 15, 1641 and March 24, 1660 and required such person to receive the sacrament and take an oath of allegiance and file a certificate with a court. 7 Anne Cap V, par. 31 (1708) naturalized foreign born protestants of natural-born subjects by providing they shall be “deemed” natural born subjects, 4 George II Cap XXI (1731) repeats the Act of 1708 In 7 Anne; and again in 13 George III Cap 21 (1773) repeats the same naturalization act. All of these statutes of naturalization demonstrated that the citizen by birth was the genuine “natural born citizen.”

    Van Dyne on Citizenship of the United States, pp. 32:

    “It was almost universally conceded that citizenship by birth in the United States was governed by the principles of the English common law. It is very doubtful whether the common law covered the case of children born abroad to subjects of England. Statutes were enacted in England to supply their deficiency. Hence, it was deemed necessary to enact a similar law In the United States to extend citizenship to children born to American parents out of the United States.”

    And finally there is Montana v. Kennedy (1961) Which matches the circumstances of Bruz to a tee………..

    Petitioner's mother is a native-born citizen of the United States and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States and has never been naturalized. Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. Pp. 309-315. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/3

    The Fact that in 1934 Congress began to allow mothers to pass citizenship by descent (automatic naturalization) does not change the fact that foreign born children have ALWAYS been naturalized citizens…………..

    So your experts are either intentionally be deceptive and obfuscating the issue OR they are idiots. Either way, You posting their fallacious claims as fact reflects greatly on you.

    1. Dear William,

      You commented,

      You have already been proven wrong Mr. Berry.. Over and over. You are choosing not to understand it… You posting their fallacious claims as fact reflects greatly on you.

      While I admire your presentation of your legal argument to support your side, you negate your argument when you make the above inaccurate claims.

      No matter how much you believe your argument may be true, it does not justify your conclusion that I am "proven wrong" or that I have made "fallacious claims."

      Every competent attorney will tell you only a court can make a final determination on a debatable issue. Before you can rightfully suggest I am wrong, someone on your side must prove in court that Cruz and Rubio are ineligible. The burden of proof is on your side, not my side.

      Your side has a hypothesis that Cruz is ineligible. It's only a hypothesis. Now, your side must test its hypothesis in a court of law. Until your side prevails in a court of law, you are out of order to claim your side wins.

      A first principle of law or science is that the side that proposes the hypothesis has the burden of proof. This principle takes precedence over all the legal arguments on your side.

      So until your side has proven its case in a court of law, by default I am right and you are wrong.

    2. Mr. Berry.

      If the courts have held for the entire history of America, that children born abroad to American citizen parents are naturalized or ,for the period from 1802 to 1855 were aliens, and you refuse to accept that fact, where does the problem lie?

      You epitomize the problem with your responses.. Even though the court HAS ruled on this EXACT set of facts, you refuse to accept it and demand another opinion, presumably because you are unwilling to accept you are wrong……….How is it possible that you can not understand the simple facts of the matter…..

      Petitioner’s mother is a native-born citizen of the United States and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States and has never been naturalized. Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. Pp. 309-315. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/3

      Cruz's mother was a 'native born citizen'……

      Cruz's father was not a citizen or national of America

      Cruz was born in a country that is NOT America

      Cruz was brought to America 4 years after he was born………

      Feel free to try an explain how in 1961 such a child was an alien, yet today YOU are claiming he is natural born? That is indeed an incredible claim………

      Please feel free to try an explain how this ruling does NOT hold for Cruz.

      This is not difficult to understand Mr. Berry………

      If you want to post someone's claim as fact, perhaps you would do well to read the source material FIRST, before posting lies that fit your belief patterns……..Once again, YOUR cited 'experts' wanted to use Wong Ark Kim. You posted their claims as authoritative…

      I will not argue that point. I agree. Justice Gray is absolutely correct.

      Justice Gray says Cruz is naturalized @672:

      By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: ………….Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.

      And @ 670: "The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle."

      [citations omitted]……."The acquisition," says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) "of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments."

      So in your opinion Mr. Berry, why is the court confused and unaware that Children born abroad are 'natural born' and do not require naturalization, as your 'experts' claim?

      How is it possible that every court for the next 100 years is unaware of this fact that only you and your 'experts' seem to know?

      I have shown they grossly misrepresented the 'NATURALIZATION ACT of 1790………

      I have shown they grossly misrepresented the known understanding of 'English Common law'.

      I have shown that 200 years of naturalization cases of which there are 100's display the unchanging fact that children who are NOT born WITHIN the exterior boundaries of the 50 nations of the Union have been considered 'naturalized' citizens at birth by 'descent' as a result of statute passed by Congress.

      You have essential told me it does not matter, because you 'believe', 'feel', 'want' something else to be true.

      Peace.

      P.S. read more about it here………. .http://www.lojack12.com/Constitution/main.html

      There is no shame in admitting you were misled by liars………….

      So when you are able to rebut the facts I have presented proving your 'experts' claims are wrong we can move forward. But it is you that must stop denying the facts…….You asked for them. I gave them to you.

      So since you claim to know more about this than I, by all means use your response to show why the courts are wrong and you are correct.

    3. Dear William,

      The issue is not about me or my opinion. Nor is the issue about which side has presented the better argument about eligibility.

      The issue is: Can your side prevail in a court of law to show Cruz or Rubio is ineligible to be president?

      If your side cannot prevail in court, then your side loses and Cruz and Rubio are eligible by default.

      Here is what I claimed in my conclusion:

      Based upon the legal arguments on both sides, it’s clear the opinions of Katyal and Clement, and Maskell, would prevail in any court that might rule on eligibility.

      Your side has had well over a year to make its case in court. All talk, no action. Therefore, at present, my side wins and your side loses.

  25. Dear Billy,

    We are not "shredding" our Constitution. We are undertaking a very complicated debate about legal technicalities. The rules of debate require we do not assume a conclusion and use our assumed conclusion to argue a position in the debate.

  26. I summarize this debate over the eligibility of Cruz and Rubio as follows:

    The legal arguments presented on both sides are compelling. It is impossible for the general public to make a decision on which side is right. Any wise attorney would advise you only a court can decide which side is correct.

    The default legal position is Cruz and Rubio are eligible. The burdon of proof is on you who believe they are ineligible.

    You who argue for ineligibility have a hypothesis. You DO NOT have proof. You are obligated to test your hypothesis in a court of law. If you don't do so, you lose by default. Endless arguing for your position is a waste of time.

    Therefore, put up or shut up! Unless you prevail in court, you lose.

    1. Dr. Ed

      The court loathes to get involved with political issues, and they won't get involved unless absolutely forced, especially SCOTUS! To get there, the plaintiff must show that he has been damaged or that he has been harmed in some direct and specific way by the alleged ineligibles Cruz, Rubio being in the race. Thus you know legal standing is required.

      From what I surmise Trump will not show his hand "trump card" at this point because to do so would prove no gain to himself, for he is winning and there are still others in the race whom are presumed to be qualified, (i.e. Christie, Bush, etc.) in addition to those that are allegedly guilty of ineligibility , Cruz and Rubeo. Thus at this point he would have a difficult argument in showing specific harm or damages to himself because up to this point he would have been required to have done nothing different than he has already done, competing against challengers who are presumed qualified.

      Ergo if I run a foot race against qualified and unqualified competitors, I cannot show during the race that I have been harmed by those that are not qualified simply because they are running, because the other qualified runners require my "effort" i.e. time and energy to compete, I can show no specific damage or harm to myself. Either way I would still have had to run the race against the qualified competitors. No harm no foul.

      The presumed qualified must drop out first leaving Trump, Cruz and Rubio remaining, then Trump can show direct specific damages and harm to himself, i.e. money, time and simply requirement to continue competing against alledged unqualified candidates.

      Even then I believe he will not challenge them. Its an educated guess that he will not bring a claim until after the general election, this only under the presumption that he has won the gop nomination. Otherwise if it looks like he is going to lose to either Cruz or Rubio in the nomination process he will go forward with the suit immediately.

      Dr. Ed,

      For someone who says they are a Trump supporter, you are awfully eager to see him or someone else ruin his chances to win by pushing a politically inopportune and legally premature challenge against those he is winning against! To push a suit at this point would be political suicide, not to mention a thin case on standing! I'm not saying you're not being honest but if what you have stated previously is true, (your experience in previous court cases), I would then question your legal advice and judgment! To push an unripe suit while simultaneously committing political suicide is quite a feat to accomplish for anyone giving their presumed, "expert" legal opinions.

      Let alone someone who presumes to have the superior judgment required to dismiss any and all challenges to date on the qualifications of alleged ineligible potus candidates.

      As you stated:

      "Based upon the legal arguments on both sides, it’s clear the opinions of Katyal and Clement, and Maskell, would prevail in any court that might rule on eligibility.

      Case closed"

      Then again you didn't state that you were a lawyer, simply a presumed paid, "consultant" and "expert witness" in someone else's cases as you stated.

      "I have consulted for lawyers for about 45 years and been an expert witness in many trials, even a very high-profile murder trial. I have never been on the losing side of a legal trial because I understand how law works and I always tell the truth."

      Absolutely no personal deprecation intended but "truth" is relative and one would never assume bias when someone is benefiting financially.

      Remember the old proverbial admonition, "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall" and the other not so old nor proverbial one, "there's always a first time for everything".

      1. Dear Ed,

        Is this issue about the eligibility of Cruz and Rubio, or is it about me? Obviously it's about the former. Therefore, all your comments about me are irrelevant. A judge would rule them out of order.

        I agree with you that Trump will not challenge Cruz or Rubio on eligibility. And there is nothing in my argument that requires Trump to do so.

        You have argued that your side cannot prove its hypothesis in court. If you are correct, then your side has lost its argument, and the issue is now closed.

        You have reduced your argument to a hypothetical, meaning no one can test it. It's like arguing about "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Who cares?

        Therefore, it's time for everyone who thinks Cruz and Rubio are ineligible to accept reality: Cruz and Rubio are eligible by default.

        My major point prevails. Until your side proves its hypothesis in court, you must accept the default position that Cruz and Rubio are eligible.

  27. Thank you Dr. Robert,

    Is there any possible information that you could provide that would allow me to follow This development?.

    I am on Twitter @gengm7

    Thank you for your information

  28. 212 is about citizens and the rights of citizens. It also includes a specific subset of citizen (natural born Citizen) in which the child is born In the country of which the parents are citizens. 215 does not make a subset of citizen. I think you read what I wrote incorrectly.

    Until 1924 a child born to a U.S. Citizen father was born to TWO U.S. citizen parents because either the mother was born a U.S. citizen or if the mother was a foreigner she acquired U.S. citizenship at the moment of marriage.

    214 is about naturalized citizens and says this. " There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. "

    We chose to restrict the office of President to ONLY natural born Citizens outside those born before declaration of Independence.

    215 refers back to 212 in reference to the rights of citizens born abroad and that they should be treated as just like all citizens. Also it says "It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed."

    Per our laws we treat all children born abroad as "naturalized".

    216. Our laws follow this pretty much to the letter and those born on U.S flagged ships or within our territorial waters are considered born IN the U.S. and if those children were born to TWO U.S. citizen parents would be natural born Citizens.

    217. Children born in the Armies of the State are treated the same as children born abroad per our laws. They are naturalized citizens and no special allowances are made for these children.

  29. Dear Dr. Ed:

    I'm sorry I misunderstood your motivations and intentions.

    However, I must point out that because the courts in this country are notoriously corrupt, taking the issue to court proves nothing and is not the answer. In vetting a candidate, all one has to do is look at the definition to see if the candidates' backgrounds measure up to it. As I said, this is not rocket science. There is a difference between "natural born citizen" and "citizen at birth". My grandson was born in this country and is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen, because his mother is not a citizen of the United States.

    Some people have tried to change the definitions, so we have to look at what they were at the time the Constitution was written, because that's what its framers intended. Though courts have tried to change the Constitution, the only way to legitimately do that is through a constitutional amendment.

    In the end, none of this matters; for whoever the president is will just be another puppet of those who are pulling the strings. That's why I can't get excited about politics.

    But it's a shame that people think they can change definitions and our Constitution without an amendment, which is also the way its framers set it up. Since the Constitution is supposedly the supreme law of the land, this really means that we have a lawless society and anything goes. It reminds me of the book "1984" where history was being hidden or changed and definitions were turned around for the unsuspecting.

    Incidentally, I'm so happy that you do understand the "global warming" hoax.

    1. Dear Lynn,

      I agree with your concerns about the corruption of our courts and the lack of a solid definition of natural born citizen. I also agree with many of the arguments you and others have presented that defines natural born citizen.

      The problem is only the courts can decide legal "truth." Case law always prevails in court decisions. Whether we agree with court decisions or not, we still must live with court decisions.

      In every court trial there is a default position. The prosecution must prove the default position is wrong.

      The default position is Cruz and Rubio are eligible. Those who believe Cruz and Rubio are ineligible must show in a court of law that their arguments will prevail. That is the only way to decide the eligibility issue.

      My focus in on reality, not hypothetical arguments.

      When I claim Cruz and Rubio are eligible, I do not claim all the arguments on the ineligible side are wrong. Rather I claim that no one will prevail with these ineligible arguments in court.

      If I am correct, and so far I am correct, then Cruz and Rubio are eligible by default.

  30. Dear Dr. Ed:

    I am NOT concerned about the lack of a solid definition of "national born citizen". The definition is very clear and, as I said, is not rocket science. Even if the Supreme Court were to try to twist this, they would be wrong. They've been wrong about many things. They were wrong in the Dred Scott decision, in which they said that Dred Scott was not a "person", because "blacks are not persons".

    It is silly to think that people who are clearly not eligible to be president by definition would be eligible by default until declared otherwise by a court. Most, if not all, states have an officer who vets candidates before putting them on that state's ballot. That should not be difficult, because the definition of "natural born citizen" is very clear. People with common sense know how to apply definitions correctly. You don't have to be a high powered lawyer or someone with a PhD to do this.

    Our forefathers had a good reason for specifying this requirement. They believed that a native of a country is more likely to be attuned to the needs of his countrymen than one born and raised in a foreign country.

    This definition is not a "hypothesis". It is a fact. The facts are what they are, and people have tried to explain them to you. You just haven't been listening.

    1. Dear Lynne,

      I agree the definition is not a hypothesis. And facts are facts. I think we agree on the definitions and facts.

      However, the legal interpretations of these definitions and facts are very complicated. Even professional lawyers disagree on the interpretations.

      My position is on how these interpretations must be made, which is as follows.

      The default is Cruz and Rubio are eligible. The opposing "hypothesis" is "Cruz and Rubio are not eligible." A hypothesis is neither a fact nor a definition.

      A hypothesis is a statement that its supporters believe is true and wish to prove is true. In a lawsuit, the prosecution will attempt to prove this hypothesis is true.

      Only a court of law can decide whether this hypothesis is "true" according to the law.

  31. Dr. Ed,

    You stated,

    "If I am correct, and so far I am correct, then Cruz and Rubio are eligible by default."

    I agree with your conclusion, and someone with strong standing must bring forward a suit in order for this controversy to be resolved. If my instincts surve me, we will see this happen within this next coming year.

    Dr. Ed,

    I Thank you for your articles and posts!

  32. Dr. Ed:

    The definition of "natural born citizen" being someone born in the country of parents who are citizens of the country could not be more simple. This makes your statement that "the legal interpretations of these definitions and facts are very complicated" invalid. The so-called experts, Katyal, Clement and Maskill, whom you cited in your article, have twisted this truth beyond recognition.

    Historical records verify that this definition was understood by the framers of the Constitution. In their comments Pete and Genevieve have cited numerous facts and references, including the fact that this definition has held throughout the years in court cases, such as Minor vs Happersett.

    The fact Pete cited (giving all the specifics) that between 2003 and 2008 there were no less than eight attempts to amend the constitutional requirements for the presidency, is extremely revealing. These were intoduced by Democrats in advance of Obama's run for that office. Another fact Pete cited that in 2008 a resolution signed by senators – including Mr. Obama – affirming the eligibility of John McCain – proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these senators also knew and understood the above definition of "natural born citizen".

    Finally those running Obama simply did an end run around the rules, and amazingly no one in power challenged this! Interestingly, in the ensuing years there were many lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility. Yet none of these cases has EVER been heard on its merits. They were always dismissed on a technicality, claiming that the plaintiff did not have standing. In the case of Dr. Terry Lakin, who refused to follow deployment orders because he didn't consider Obama to be president and therefore his commander in chief, Lakin did have standing. He stood to lose a lot if convicted. This was a supreme attempt to get this issue into the court system, since previous efforts to do so had failed. Yet this case, too, was never heard on its merits. Lakin was court marshaled. The mainstream media never even reported on this case.

    Candidates are vetted on the basis of eligibility for office by each state's secretary of state. It is not necessary for a court to determine eligibility. However, based on the above facts, I seriously doubt if these candidates' eligibility will ever make it into a court. For if this issue is ever heard in a just court of law, and the court affirms the simple definition of "natural born citizen" Obama would be exposed for the phony he is. Since his father was never a U.S. ctizen, he was always ineligible for the U.S. presidency. He knows that.

    1. Dear Lynne,

      You, Pete, and others have done an outstanding job in presenting evidence for your position. However, we have no way to determine whether Katyal, Clement and Maskill, "have twisted this truth beyond recognition." We are back to a question only a court can answer.

      Your note that eligibility can also be challenged at the Secretary of State. There are many people who wish to challenge the eligibility of Cruz and Rubio.

      Why have these people not organized a challenge of eligibility in every Secretary of State office and in appropriate courts?

      I encourage those who strongly believe Cruz and Rubio are not eligible to challenge their candidacy at both the Secretary of State levels and the appropriate court levels. There is no time to waste. This should really be done before voting begins.

  33. Pingback: Ted Cruz and the Oath Keepers

  34. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    Katyal,Clement and Maskell are all out to lunch. Attorney Appuzzo has rebutted Katyal and Clement. Maskell is also debunked. For Harvard Lawyers Katyal and Clement were not informed enough to know that the provision of the Naturalization Act (Note: the term "Naturalization") of 1790 erroneously "considered" Children born abroad to American citizens as "Natural Born Citizens". That provision was REPEALED in 1795. There is NO "President" Obama. For the same reasons, there will never be a "President" Cruz,Rubio,Jindal or Sanders. Unless of course Art.2, Sec. I is repealed. Congress has tried to change the NBC requirement at least 8 times since 1975. ALL attempts have failed. Congress knows I am right or else they would not be trying to erode the mandatory requirement that one be born IN the US to Parents who are both Americans themselves., a definition that has been affirmed and reaffirmed by SCOTUS in six separate cases. See: Minor v Happersett, USSCt. (1875) and five others. There is NO "President" Obama: http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-n

  35. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    Sorry Ed, See: Stare Decisis. SCOTUS has ruled in six separate cases that an NBC is one born IN the United States to Parents who are both Citizens themselves. ALL Presidents since Martin Van Buren met this definition except for the founders who were grandfathered in and our nations two usurpers Chester Arthur and Barack Obama.

  36. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    You are quite correct. Furthermore, SCOTUS has affirmed this definition and has reaffirmed it five time. See: Minor v Happersett,USSCT., The Venus., Shanks v Dupont, US v Wong Kim Ark and others.

  37. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    Yes she has. Six US Supreme Court cases are on her side. You would not prevail in THIS case. An NBC is one born IN the United States to Parents who are both Americans themselves. NO EXCEPTIONS or loopholes. Legislation cannot make an NBC out of someone that isn't one.

  38. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    Les Naturelles,ou indignes sont ceux qui sont nes de le pays de parents citoyens. Natural Born Citizens are born in a country to parents who are both citizens. Affirmed by the USSCt. in six separate cases. NO one else but those born in the US to 2 American "Citoyens" can be President.

  39. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    Cruz is in danger of losing his Senate seat due to the fact that he held Canadian citizenship when elected to that post. Investigations are being undertaken as I write to determine if both of his parents naturalized IN Canada making Cruz an NBC of Canada.

  40. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    ALL Natural Born Citizens are Citizens but not all Citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That the terms are differentiated in the Constitution proves that "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" are NOT Tantamount.

  41. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    You are wrong and you are spinning your wheels. You could not prevail using your arguments. The law is firmly established. It is immutable. SCOTUS could not even wiggle out of it. There are SIX USSCt. rulings to support the incontrovertible fact that an NBC is one born in the US to 2 American citizen parents. You can continue to be a stubborn ass but you just make yourself look like a fool.

  42. Dear Dr. Laity, I do not disagree with your argument. My position is simple:

    We cannot decide this issue by debating on the Internet. Only a court of law can decide the issue.

    The default legal position is Cruz and Rubio are eligible. The burden of proof is upon those who believe Cruz and Rubio are ineligible to prove so in a court of law.

    However, Trump has found a way to reverse the burden of proof. See "How Trump put Cruz in eligibility check." Now, if enough voters wake up and not vote for Cruz and Rubio, we will solve this issue.

  43. To add to this discussion, I will add in the next few comments, excerpts from emails sent to me privately. Here is the first:

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natu

    You will find out more real contemporary history of the framers and their mind and ethos from her than anybody else I’ve found. A delightful throw-back to common-sense. I really related because in my lifetime I remember addressing greeting cards at this time of year to Mr. and Mrs. Henry——. That was a carryover from the colonial and pre-colonial period when the “condition or situation” of the father was what was paramount. Men were really men and they acted like it and the women actually loved and promoted it. Men served their wives in the fear of God Almighty.

    This link below has many of the same points made by Publius but with even more discriminating and important illustrations that Blackstone was not the chosen voice. Vatell’s The Law of Nations was. A small departure from the intent of the Founders has gotten our electoral college neutralized and our political party vetting and state vetting process virtually eliminated. Look what we have in the Oval Office as a direct result.

    http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    There should be no amount of money or influence that can produce the current morass that we have in this country if our elected officials obeyed their oaths’ of office and stopped believing case law and SCOTUS decisions are binding. They are opinions. It’s akin to judges charging juries with determining the facts in the case, ONLY. What about the law that is being applied that is designed to deprive the individual of life, liberty or some other God-Given right. The day of the Star Court is back because of the type of reasoning you have exercised in this piece. Mark Levin, Michael Ferris, IN State Sen. David Long and a lot of other gifted speakers who have been the product of social psychological conditioning are in the same boat.

    1. Dear Ed,

      Finally I've found a voice of reason in your presentation and Blog. I was just going to present Mario Apuzzo and Publius Huldah and was pleased to see you have included them.

      Thank you

      Boots

  44. Here is the second:

    I can concede that Cruz and Rubio are eligible to be President, but only under the premise of corrupted laws…just like the latest Supreme Court decision defining marriage…marriage is between man and a woman; anything else is a contract. It is not a just law, because it goes contrary to God's laws. Just as we cannot recognize those handed down by the Supreme Court, neither can we recognize the corrupted version of "Natural Born." Obama, Cruz, Rubio, are NOT ELIGIBLE in the true sense; they are only eligible by means of "crafty" lawyers who have found a way to distort the truth. I will invite Deevy to respond on your website concerning what you have written.

    Just like you, I interpret the law as you mention, but I am in disagreement because the laws have been twisted and I do not recognize them to be legal. I am curious: Do you think that the Supreme Court decision on marriage is valid? Especially when it goes contrary to God's Law? If they took the 2nd amendment away…would that law be valid? Katyal, Clement, and Maskell rebut of Apuzzo's opinion, are not valid because they misrepresent and corrupt the truth. I cannot see Deevy Kidd agreeing with your stance on this subject, at least from your perspective. I will respond later on your site; however, personally, I wanted to say to you that I am highly disappointed that you would give the impression that it is ok for these people to be president or become president who are clearly not for the American people. On the other hand, it is a good thing that you recognize that Trump may be the best qualified to become president.

    It overwhelms me concerning your stance…do you really think that Obama, Cruz and Rubio are perfectly legal???

    1. To answer your question, No. I do not think Obama, Cruz, and Rubio are eligible.

      However, my article is not about my personal opinion. My article is about political and legal reality. The reality is more significant than my personal opinion. The reality is all arguments on the Internet are of no avail unless someone can prevail with these arguments in a court of law.

      The political reality is voters will continue to vote for candidates who are ineligible because there is no clear ruling legal decision of "natural born citizen."

      The legal reality is Cruz and Rubio are eligible by default until someone proves otherwise.

      My hope is that Trump's method will succeed. Trump has found a way to reverse the burden of proof. See “How Trump put Cruz in eligibility check.”

  45. Here is a third:

    Ed, I perfectly see what you're saying; however, your article left me with a bad feeling in my gut that your article will be used to justify and allow the people to justify to vote unjustly.

    These laws that have been handed down; these opinions that have been handed down by our courts, are misrepresentation of the truth. The truth has become a lie, and a lie has become the truth. This is not what our founders meant.

    By leaving your article "as is" …it allows evil to prevail. "When good people do nothing…evil prevails." This is why I just had to mention something. Thousands will read your article, and many will think that you endorse such a thing.

    I would hope that you would at least clarify some things and go a little deeper and expose how all this came to be in the first place.

    Apparently, you have done your homework, however, you should reveal and apply "who, what, when, how" this affects the American people. "The weight of more recent federal cases" on Natural Born Citizens, Marriage, etc., are sending us all down a road that will bring the end of America, the values, justice, and Biblical beliefs that this once great nation held.

    I beseech you to add to your article and leave a better impression of "What we Must Do."

  46. Here is a fourth:

    Ed, agree wholeheartedly. Case law will always prevail. Birthers are spitting into the wind on the eligibility issue. They have become Don Quixotes. Huge waste of time and effort.

  47. Here is a fifth:

    The inegibility is proved here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natu… Read the older paper at the bottom first.

    You must not be aware that the federal courts have dismissed, for lack of standing, all of the lawsuits filed in federal district courts which challenge Obama’s eligibility for not being a “natural born citizen”. The Circuit Courts of Appeal have affirmed the dismissals; and the Supreme Court has denied cert (that means, “refused to review”) in all of the cases.

  48. Here is a sixth:

    AMERICA….OUR STOLEN COUNTRY-Part I, Chapter I

    "No person, except a natural-born citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." Article II, Section I-US Constitution

    Approximately 233 years ago our Revolutionary War began. When it ended, the United States of America was born, liberty proclaimed and laws enacted under the new Constitution. At that time, John Jay wisely convinced George Washington to include in the Constitution the Article II, Section 1 provision limiting the Presidency and Vice-Presidency to natural-born American citizens, so that no one with a dual-nationality or other foreign allegiance (British, for example) could adversely affect the governance of our Country, a provision casually ignored by many in today's political arena who treat Article II,Section I (as well as other parts of our Constitution) as "throwaway" pieces of legislation if they conflict with one's ambition.

    By deliberately deceiving and lying to America and preventing access to virtually every document bearing his name, plus criminally offering a false " Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and a later false 2011 Certificate of Live Birth as proof of eligibility, Obama has demonstrated that he doesn't attempt to secure copies of documents from the issuing entities. Instead, new ones are created just for him. He has "cloaked" truth in secrecy and stolen a Presidency! Recently, on a National TV "open" mike, all America accidentally overheard him telling his subordinates to "find a way around The Constitution." Apparently, they succeeded. This from a man who, when inaugurated, swore under oath to defend that same Constitution. Today, our Constitutional liberty is sorely threatened. What John Jay feared has arrived, in the person of Barack Obama!

    The year is 2008 AD. To support his claim of being a "natural-born" American citizen it's odd that Obama was aware of a status which today's judges cannot find anyone with "standing" to challenge. Obama, former Constitutional teacher, allowed his COLB, with but 13 points of information, to be posted on the Daily Kos website, while fully aware that only a long-form "Certificate of Live Birth", requiring approx. 41 points of information, was valid for one seeking The Presidency.Included in the approx. 28 missing points on his COLB were the birth certificate number(blacked out), Hospital name, Physician and birth witnesses. Now there's transparency! Though all COLB's specifically warn "Any alteration invalidates this Certificate" Obama criminally used his COLB to steal the Presidency!

    Though his COLB was ineligible and promptly identified as fraudulent by many computer experts, his deception continued until April,2011. During that time many lawsuits, unreported by the Media, challenged his eligibility. Most were dismissed as having "no standing", against plaintiffs who did have "standing". They were standing up for our Constitution!

    Not once did Obama offer to produce a valid "Certificate of Live Birth", even when subpoenaed by Courts. America believed we were electing a president. Apparently Obama believed he had been crowned a King. He would sacrifice (and he did) any person or expense to prevent professional scrutiny of his COLB.Why would he not release a Health Dept. "Certificate of Live Birth copy, a simple solution to a serious challenge….unless he feared the consequences of disclosure and, as his subsequent actions confirmed, was now experiencing that fear? Also, not incidentally, one Federal Judge even dismissed a case by claiming Obama had been "thoroughly vetted and massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during his two year Presidential campaign" whereas, in fact, Presidential vetting is not exercised by "America's vigilant citizenry" but by elected representatives charged with obeying the Constitution. Sadly, they ignored their responsibility.

    THE PATH OF DECEPTION

    When more and more people challenged Barack Obama's presidential eligibility the limited value of a COLB became too obvious even for Obama. It was a document which, even if authentic, could only bestow a "naturalized citizenship" status at best. It could help one obtain a passport, social security number or even to seek a license to drive a car….but not a NATION. Obama knew this, yet allowed the deception to continue. If his COLB truly matched a Hawaiian Health Dept.copy, as he previously claimed, it would make both documents COLB's, and both unacceptable for Presidential aspirants. Please reflect on that last sentence. Does anyone still wonder why Obama will not allow Hawaii to release a presumed copy for scrutiny?

    Obama, his staff, former Press Sec'y Robert Gibbs and the Major Media outlets keep citing his COLB as proof of eligibility to this day. Realizing his attempt to deceive America with this document was failing, Obama immediately refused to allow any documents concerning his birth, schooling,etc. to be disclosed to anyone. His "transparency" consisted of only allowing a document which he, Obama, allowed to be viewed while never allowing direct access to the Hawaiian Health Dept. His secrecy seduced our Nation! Something, however, arose in 2010-2011 which forced Obama to change his defense of his "claimed" eligibility.

  49. Here is a seventh:

    Hi Ed,

    Regarding your agreement that Rubio and Jindal are citizens simply because they were born in the USA because of the 14th Amendment, here are some historical facts regarding that issue.

    Regarding Amendment 14 of the Constitution there are many sources we can go to help us comprehend the meaning of that sentence,

    “Section1: 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.”

    This amendment was ratified in 1868 and it is much easier for us to research and comprehend what those who authored it meant. Letters back and forth to Members and others still exist in collections. Senator Jacob Howard wrote the 14th. Howard himself told us what it meant. He said,

    “Every person born within the limits of the United States, subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the individual state jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

    Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else…subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

    Legislative History of the 14th Amendment:

    During Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause it was made clear that the drafters did not intend automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th Amendment, in floor debate said of the Clause:

    “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[1]

    Senator Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause. He said, “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

    Notice the reasoning deployed, Native Americans maintain their tribal relations so they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Senator Edgar Cowan said, “It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.”[2]

    Senator Lyman Trumbull said:

    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means, “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.”

    He further elaborated, “What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

    There was still more discussion of the language by Senator Reverdy Johnson. He said:

    “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    Supreme Court on Birthright Citizenship for illegal immigrants:

    While some have discussed birthright citizenship as if it is settled law that any person born in the U.S. is a citizen, the Supreme Court has never ruled as such. In the famous 2004 Supreme Court case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Taliban fighter Yaser Esam Hamdi was discovered to have been born in the United States to parents that were subjects of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Even though he was born in the United States, the Court never called him a citizen and the Court made no declaration in that case that anyone born on American soil was automatically a citizen.

    In the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, the Supreme Court said, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

    Next, in 1884, the Supreme Court addressed a claim of citizenship in Elk v. Wilkins. The Court held that John Elk did not meet the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment because he was a member of an Indian tribe at birth. The Court said that even though Elk was born in the U.S. he did not meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement because that required that he “not merely be subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction.”

    Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. However, that case dealt with a man that was born to parents that were legally and permanently domiciled in the United States at the time of his birth. In that case, there was more expansive language used on birthright citizenship, but it was neither the holding of the case nor does it operate as binding precedent on the Court or as the law of the land.

  50. Here is the ninth:

    You bring out some excellent historical facts regarding the eligibility of both of these two Senators to serve as president. In my research on this very topic I found additions substantial supports for this Constitutional issue which I share with you which I believe is a much stronger interpretation of the Original Intent of the 14th amendment.

    Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment of 1868 the Congress pass the Civil Rights Act in 1866 which reads as follows, “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America … That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    This 1866 Act thus secured to the former slaves the same right to contract, to hold property, and to sue, as whites enjoyed, and the equal benefit of all laws for security of person and property. “Political rights” were excluded [Remember, the 14th Amendment did not give freed slaves the right to vote]. But respecting the rights listed in the Act, States were now required to treat blacks the same as whites. THAT is what the “equal protection” clause in the 14th Amendment means.

    So when the 14th Amendment was debated and passed in 1868 what did the author of this Amendment intend for it to mean. Senator Jacob Howard during the debate stated its intended purpose, “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the [United States]. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Note the word “aliens.” What was the definition of this word. Pull out your 1828 Noah Webster’s American Dictionary and your will find it is defined as, “1. Foreign; not belonging to the same country, land or government. 2. Belonging to one who is not a citizen.”

    Read again the first sentence in the 14th Amendment, “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.”

    Note the wording included in the Act of 1866, “not subject to any foreign power” and then the wording in the 14th Amendment which stated, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Refer back to Senator Howard’s explanation when he cited “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” The wife of an ambassador gives birth to a child in one of the sovereign states. Her child was born within the boundaries of the United States. But is her child “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? No, the child is subject to the same jurisdiction as its mother. Senator Howard’s statement includes the word “alien.” Thus, a mother who is a subject of a foreign nation and enters our Nation illegally (alien) and gives birth to a child, the child is NOT automatically a citizen of our Nation. On the other hand a mother born in the U.S. and gives birth to a child in a foreign land the child is a natural born child of an American citizen who is a subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

  51. Here is the tenth:

    Do your homework…..Minor vs. Happerstat….1875 (circa). And why if this is a important issue…..why won't the supreme court hear the case?

    There have been at least 22 cases brought forward…and all dismissed due to ''standing''…which in it's self is a provocation of law…..not a rule of law.

    Sorry state of affairs……..It's not a matter of which candidate is a "good guy"….but a rule of law and so far it is undecided.

    Again read the 14th amendment…….it doesn't define ''natural born citizen.''

    Do you think the founders were just aloaf in putting that in the constitution?

    Sorry they didn't define the meaning….would really close the case of what we are aruging about.

    Personally, I think the supreme court should rule on the subject, and put all this to rest…..even though I don't have much confidence in the supreme court….

    1. You will notice, I did not conclude which side is legally correct. I wouldn't even try because only a court can determine that.

      My motive was to get those who believe Cruz and Rubio are ineligible to get off their butts and act. My position is that legally, Cruz and Rubio are eligible by default. Those who believe otherwise have the burden of proof.

      Unless they can find a way to get into court and prevail then they may as well forget the whole subject.

  52. And finally… this is a whole article but very relevant to this discussion:

    A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen

    By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meanin… . The first sentence of the article says: “We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General.” The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are natural born citizens) and offers nothing new. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father. I have written a recent article in which I conclude that Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. The article is entitled, “What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens," accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-preside… . Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen. They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen. But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist.

    The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion. They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen. They do not examine what was the source of the Framers' definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified. They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com .

    They gloss over what the Framers' purpose was for requiring the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to be a natural born citizen. They do not engage in any real discussion on what the Framers were trying to achieve through the clause. They dismiss all debate on the subject of foreign influence by flatly stating without any evidence: "The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace."

    The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." This is even more a blatant omission given that they argue that the English naturalization statutes referred to persons born out of the King's dominion to British subject parents as "natural born subjects." They fail to address this critical change made by our early Congress, critical because Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that a “Citizen” of the United States was eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution and that thereafter only a “natural born Citizen” was so eligible. Hence, Congress referring to one as a citizen rather than a natural born citizen, given the presidential eligibility requirements of Article II, was a serious thing. They do not discuss what the language of the 1790 Act, "shall be considered as," meant. They fail to address the issue that this was naturalization language and nothing more. They fail to discuss whether Congress even had the constitutional power to make anyone born out of the United States a natural born citizen, if that was Congress’s intent in the first place.

    They assert without demonstrating that the English common law supports their position. But they totally ignore that under the English common law, only persons born in the King's dominion and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that those born out of the dominion and therefore out of his jurisdiction became subjects only through a naturalization Act of Parliament.

    They cite to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, but they do not cite to Emer de Vattel and his The Laws of Nations (1758) (1797) or Minor, two leading sources that inform on U.S. citizenship. Both Vattel and Minor defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. What is incredible is that they cite U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to demonstrate that British statutes called children born out of the King's dominion to subject parents "natural born." But they fail to tell the reader that Wong Kim Ark considered children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents to be naturalized by acts of Congress. In fact, they give virtually no discussion of the Wong Kim Ark case because they know that the case said that under the English common law, only children born in the King’s dominion and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that any child born out of that dominion needed an act of Parliament to naturalize him or her. They also fail to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), in which both majority and dissent said the same as Wong Kim Ark which was that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents become citizens of the United States only through the grace of Congress who made them citizens through a naturalization Act without which those children would be aliens. It simply defies logic and good reason to conclude that a person who would not be a citizen at all without a naturalization act of Congress is a natural born citizen.

    Katyal and Clement argue that John Jay had children born out of the United States while he was on diplomatic assignment and that he would not have disqualified his own children from being natural born citizens. This is a really baseless point since Jay's children would have been born out of the United States to parents who were serving the national defense of the United States and therefore reputed born in the United States. Likewise, they present the John McCain situation as proof for their position. But they fail to realize that John McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States which makes him reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents and therefore a natural born citizen under the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen as confirmed by unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor. See Vattel, Section 217 (children born out of the country to citizen parents serving in the armies of the state are reputed born in the country). They give the examples of Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney who they say were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. The argument is meritless, for they were both born to U.S. citizen parents in U.S. sovereign territory subject to no foreign power and hence were born in part of the country known as the United States, all of which made them natural born citizens under the common law definition of a natural born citizen.

    The authors conclude without demonstrating: "Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution." They simply make this conclusion without having shown how their position is valid given the historical and legal record.

    The authors also show contempt to the constitutional requirement that the President has to be a natural born citizen and for any person who dare raise any such issue. For example, they say: "simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad," rather than saying that he was born in a foreign nation; "born in a Canadian hospital," rather than saying that he was born in Canada; "[d]espite the happenstance of a birth across the border;" they call arguments with which they do not agree "spurious;" and they consider objections to candidate's eligibility as "specious objections to candidates eligibility," as if no one ever made any valid argument.

    In short, Katyal and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning and is nothing more than an attempt to convince the reader that Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen because they said so and the reader has to believe that because they were former heads of the Office of Solicitor General of the United States.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    March 13, 2015
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com

    Copyright © 2015

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    All Rights Reserved

    Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-res

  53. Pingback: Republican debate will determine who wins Iowa

  54. Pingback: Why Cruz could be our next president

  55. Dr. Berry: You have written an interesting summary on the three papers that you have read. However, the fact of the matter is that in a Court case, it is not the case that the SCOTUS has to settle a debate between the papers written by Katyal & Clement and by Maskell as opposed to the paper written by Apuzzo. The

    SCOTUS will unavoidably have to do its own research on this question and draw its own conclusions. No Court can make a legal ruling simply by considering three papers written by lawyers. Besides, as you can well imagine, there are many differing opinions on which papers or academic opinions are to be considered as the Key Opinions on this question, especially when one of these three "key opinions" (Katyal & Clement) is only four pages in length and is totally bereft of meaningful citations and references.

    At this point, allow me to draw a distinction between the logic of

    physics and the logic of law: in the law, a cat, can, by legislative fiat, be defined as an elephant and a dog may permissably be defined as belonging to a class of gasoline additives. Such will not work in the logic of physics. In computer science terms, the derived results may be "undefined."

    Any Court that wishes to tackle this question will have to look at the British common law of the 1700s, and look at Court

    precedents. As has been mentioned already by others, Stare Decisis is to be applied. Textbooks on immigration and naturalization and citizenship law can be expected to be consulted by the Court, as well as rulings made by the US immigration department over the years.

    As for attempting to arrive at a concrete definition of the various phrases used, such as natural born and native born, one will find that these terms have been used interchangeably in various Court rulings. Also, as mentioned in comments, supra, on this page, the idea of citizenship by birth abroad to one or more US citizen parents has been termed "naturalization at birth" and

    "naturalization by descent." (See Wong Kim Ark and dissenting opinion in Rogers v. Bellei, SCOTUS, 1971.)

    One strain of that particular approach posits that naturalization is whereby a person aquires US citizenship by an enactment by Congress. As stated in Rogers v. Bellei, dissenting opinion,

    "As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization when used in its constitutional sense is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country." The Wong Kim Ark

    case has been cited many hundreds of times in subsequent cases.

    One important point that needs to be condidered is that if Ted Cruz is really a Constitutional Originalist, then he would not be eligible as the common law at that time only allowed for citizenship by birth to be passed down by the father. Up until 1934, the citizenship of the mother held no sway in citizenship by birth.

    As of today, the only person that could be regarded as having the legal standing to bring such a lawsuit would be Ted Cruz, himself. However, even if Cruz were to file for a declaratory ruling, a Court is most likely to say that the issue is not ripe for a hearing or that the issue is a political question and should therefore, be left to Congress to address to the extant that such laws that allow Congress to address such a matter in a manner that is not at variance with the Constitution.

    1. Dear Sean, Thank you for your comment. First, let me say I completely agree with your opening paragraph:

      You have written an interesting summary on the three papers that you have read. However, the fact of the matter is that in a Court case, it is not the case that the SCOTUS has to settle a debate between the papers written by Katyal & Clement and by Maskell as opposed to the paper written by Apuzzo. The SCOTUS will unavoidably have to do its own research on this question and draw its own conclusions. No Court can make a legal ruling simply by considering three papers written by lawyers. Besides, as you can well imagine, there are many differing opinions on which papers or academic opinions are to be considered as the Key Opinions on this question, especially when one of these three “key opinions” (Katyal & Clement) is only four pages in length and is totally bereft of meaningful citations and references.

      Let me say in my defense, I did not intend in any way to make an intensive analysis of the eligibility issue. I intended only to provide a big picture view of the issue. The study of physics trains students to focus on the big picture and get it correct before delving into the details. This is as far as I go into law as a physicist.

      My conclusion, using only the three papers as evidence, is the following, which seems to agree with your comment:

      1. The eligibility issue is far too complex too be resolved by debates on the Internet.

      2. Only a court of law can make a decision.

      3. Cruz and Rubio are by law eligible until proven ineligible.

      4. The burden of proof is upon those who attempt to prove them ineligible.

      You have added significant value to this discussion that extends far beyond what I could have added. Your in-depth review appears to support my big-picture conclusion.

  56. Dr. Berry

    The question of eligibilty is more complex that it would first appear. Continuous research can lead one to form a reasonable answer as to how a Court would rule on this matter. But, that takes time to research and time to contemplate the issue as more research is done.

    As to proof of eligibilty, it seems to me that there are two levels of analysis on this. I have not researched the election laws, but it would make sense for some State or Federal electoral body to do the eligibilty vetting for presidential candidates. After all, a taxi driver has to show the prospective employer that they have a valid driver's license as a condition of employment. A medical doctor has to provide proof of qualifications in order to practice medicine. It would, therefore, make sense for the US Government to ensure that those running for President actually do meet the test for eligibility as expressed in Article II of the Constitution.

    The second level of analysis would be in a case in which a member of the public takes the issue to Court. Overall, the burden of proof should be on the candidate when being vetted by an electoral body, and in cases in which members of the public are taking the issue to Court, then, of course, the burden of proof lies with the person taking the issue to Court.

    So, I would posit that anyone that wishes to be a Presidential candidate, has to establish to an electoral body of competent jurisdiction that they do meet the eligibility requirements pursuant to Article II.

    As to whether or not only a Court can make a decision on the "natural born" question, currently, the Courts do have the option of ruling that the matter is best left to Congress to address, to the extent that Congress is legally and Constitutionally able to do so.

    To address the "natural born" question, the choices available are to have the Court system decide its meaning, or make a Constitutional amendment that provides a definition of "natural born" as it relates to Article II, or that changes or removes that phrase.

    It is worth mentioning that Marco Rubio would appear to meet the test of "natural born" for the purposes of Article II, as Rubio was born on American soil and also, within the continental United States.

    In Ted Cruz' case, he, being born in Canada, was a "natural born" citizen of Canada. See The Canadian Citzenship Act, 1947, section 5(a). As a result, his situation is very much different from that of Marco Rubio's. Since Cruz was born in Canada, he was able to take US citizenship as well, but only if certain parental residency requirements were met with, and only if Ted Cruz, himself, met certain age requirements dealing with when he moved to the United States, and for how long he resided in the United States.

    If a person is born outside of the United States to at least one American parent, then they can aquire US citizenship by birth, but only if that person and their parent, or parents, as the case may be, comply with the statutory requirements.

  57. Dr. Berry,

    The Minor v. Happersett case does not provide an answer to the question of whether Cruz or Rubio are eligible under Article II. All that is does say for certain is that those born on American soil to two American citizens as parents do fall within the definition of "natural born" under common law. It goes on to say that it (in the year 1874) is an unsettled question as to whether those born on American soil can be termed as an American citizen where one or both of those parents are not, themselves, American citizens.

  58. Here are other articles on this subject:

    This website has an extensive discussion but it seems to use the same references already discussed above.

    Larry Klayman writes that Cruz and Rubio are ineligible but he uses Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations:

    Cruz is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban-Canadian father, and until last year was a dual Canadian-American citizen. In 2014 he conveniently renounced his Canadian citizenship in the nick of time to run for the presidency. Rubio, on the other hand, was born in the states, but his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth. Thus, these Cuban-American senators are technically ineligible to be president.

    I conclude, as before, the issue is unsettled and only a court, likely only the Supreme Court, can settle the issue. Ted Cruz has his opinion that he is eligible. However, Cruz will not admit that the issue is legally unsettled. I think that is Cruz's core problem. All good lawyers should recognize when an issue is unsettled.

    Please see my continued discussion of eligibility in my article "Why Sanders could be our next President."

    1. Dr. Berry,

      Has anyone asked Ted Cruz to provide citations for caselaw and legislation to support his claim that this issue is settled? If he has legal research info that everyone else is not aware of, including the Courts, then I am sure that inquiring minds would sincerely like to know.

      1. Dear Sean,

        Donald Trump asked Ted Cruz to prove he is eligible but Cruz just laughed at the suggestion.

        Now the issue is in the court of public opinion. If Cruz wins Iowa then we know the voters don't care about eligibility. Hypocritical because most of those who support Cruz were very concerned about Obama's eligibility.

        1. Dr. Berry,

          If Ted Cruz is so well versed with US Constitutional law and if he is so sure that his eligibility is settled as a matter of law, then he should, quite easily and very quickly, be able to cite any applicable Court cases and statute law to prove to everyone that his claim to eligibility is proven. Since he has not taken the roughly 15 or 20 seconds to do so leaves one thinking that the only reasonable conclusion is that there are no such cases or law for him to cite. I am not being trite or flippant, such cases and law could easily be cited in 20 seconds. Cruz would know this.

          If there truly are such cases and law unequivocally proving Cruz' claim then the smart thing for him to have done would be to have told everyone which cases and laws these are.

          If the Democrats do sue over Cruz' eligibility and if the Courts simply toss the matter over to Congress to handle, to the extent that it can, then if Congress senses that there is very little public interest in going into Cruz' eligibility, then it can be expected that Congress will find a way to quietly sweep it under the rug.

  59. Howdy Dr. Ed,

    I must have missed something here:

    By equally deploying your yardstick, does not each candidate, by throwing their hat into the ring, each assert, even though tacitly, that they are qualified to the office of President in the first instance? According to your yardstick, is this monkey not squarely on the back of the candidate to support the assertion if and when challenged?

    If not, then what legal theory exempts the first asserter from proving up the initial assertion and supersede the original burden to the challenger upon raising a challenge to the original assertion?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.