In Jimmy's world, no republican is "nice".
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Big-name legal scholars are giving validation to Donald Trump's attack against Ted Cruz
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
In Jimmy's world, no republican is "nice".
This is a fascinating legal issue, but it's unfortunate it is hanging over Cruz's head. I think Trump has to be very careful with it, which he basically and uncharacteristically, has been.
The arguments are that under English common law prior to the time the Constitution was adopted, natural born status was dependent on birth within the jurisdiction and the father's citizenship. England had adopted a law that modified that standard and granted birth citizenship to those born outside the country to English parents.
The two apparent issues are one, which standard did the Framers rely on, the common law rule or the actual English practice per statue? And two, if they did rely on the statutory standard, is that natural born citizenship or is it naturalization at birth? See http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html#read_more
FWIW, I believe Cruz is eligible. The very first Congress adopted a law in 1790 that specifically said someone in his status was to be deemed natural born. I see this as perhaps an effort to clear up the confusion. Otherwise, they could have just said such people "acquired citizenship". Use of the specific term seems deliberate, as other than running for president there are no legal distinctions between natural born and naturalized citizens. The counter argument is that citizenship acquired by an act of congress is the definition of "naturalized." No such act is required for the natural born.
The arguments are that under English common law prior to the time the Constitution was adopted, natural born status was dependent on birth within the jurisdiction and the father's citizenship. England had adopted a law that modified that standard and granted birth citizenship to those born outside the country to English parents.
The two apparent issues are one, which standard did the Framers rely on, the common law rule or the actual English practice per statue? And two, if they did rely on the statutory standard, is that natural born citizenship or is it naturalization at birth? See http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html#read_more
FWIW, I believe Cruz is eligible. The very first Congress adopted a law in 1790 that specifically said someone in his status was to be deemed natural born. I see this as perhaps an effort to clear up the confusion. Otherwise, they could have just said such people "acquired citizenship". Use of the specific term seems deliberate, as other than running for president there are no legal distinctions between natural born and naturalized citizens. The counter argument is that citizenship acquired by an act of congress is the definition of "naturalized." No such act is required for the natural born.
This was a reply to Kut2k2 in another thread regarding this subject
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...-is-a-child-abuser.297007/page-4#post-4230852
"Means nothing. Cruz was naturalized at birth. That doesn't mean he was natural born. No law by Congress can settle this matter. Only the federal judiciary can settle this matter. "
------------------
The article references a SCOTUS ruling pertaining to similar circumstances, Rogers v. Bellei, (401 U.S. 815)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
Bellei, born and lived aboard to an Italian father and US mother, originally had his citizenship revoked. He argued that his "native-born" citizenship was granted to him since birth via his mother, and he was not naturalized and dependent upon State criteria to retain citizenship. SCOTUS ruled in his favor.
Yes , I understand why there are people who would like to have Cruz disqualified..... By all means take it to court, but you'll be waisting your time.... This is an attempt to slow Cruz's campaign and nothing more.
This is incorrect. The Supreme Court did not rule in Bellei's favor. It upheld the provision in the Naturalization Act that required him to spend a certain amount of time in the uS to retain his citizenship.
The Court stated: " A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice. If it does, the congressional response seems obvious."
My Bad, in reading..... Must have been part of the lower courts interpretation being overturned by SCOTUS, actually being part of Bellei's argument found not applicableThis is incorrect. The Supreme Court did not rule in Bellei's favor. It upheld the provision in the Naturalization Act that required him to spend a certain amount of time in the uS to retain his citizenship.
The Court stated: " A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice. If it does, the congressional response seems obvious."
Thanks for the correction.
Thus, in summary, it may be said fairly that, for the most part, each successive statute, as applied to a foreign-born child of one United States citizen parent, moved in a direction of leniency for the child. For plaintiff Bellei, the statute changed from complete disqualification to citizenship upon a condition subsequent, with that condition being expanded and made less onerous, and, after his birth, with the succeeding liberalizing provisions made applicable to him in replacement of the stricter statute in effect when he was born. The plaintiff
Last edited:
Yes, actually I find Bellei to be very bad for Cruz because if Bellei had been a natural born citizen, the Court would have had to accept his argument. The Court's reasoning was based on the fact that Congress didn't have to grant him citizenship at all, so of course they could impose conditions.
The 1790 law seems to point in the opposite direction though. Now obviously Cruz did not come under that law, but it seemed to indicate the original intent that such births conveyed natural born citizenship.
The 1790 law seems to point in the opposite direction though. Now obviously Cruz did not come under that law, but it seemed to indicate the original intent that such births conveyed natural born citizenship.
Congressional Research Service
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney November 14, 2011
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
In a nutshell, people born to U.S. citizens in foreign countries "most likely" qualify as natural-born citizens.
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney November 14, 2011
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
In a nutshell, people born to U.S. citizens in foreign countries "most likely" qualify as natural-born citizens.
Last edited:
The fact that Cruz' father was not a citizen complicates matters. Under the common law rule, babies took the citizenship of their father.
I looked into this briefly and my conclusion was that he probably does qualify, but it is far from the open and shut case he is claiming it is. The Bellei case is a huge obstacle because it ruled that someone in Cruz's position had to satisfy statutory conditions subsequent, ie reside in the US for a specified period. You cannot be "natural born" and also have to satisfy naturalization requirements. The two are mutually inconsistent.
That case however concerned citizenship, not the Article II requirement to qualify to be president. I am convinced from the 1790 statute that the Framers intended for people in his status to be deemed natural born.
I looked into this briefly and my conclusion was that he probably does qualify, but it is far from the open and shut case he is claiming it is. The Bellei case is a huge obstacle because it ruled that someone in Cruz's position had to satisfy statutory conditions subsequent, ie reside in the US for a specified period. You cannot be "natural born" and also have to satisfy naturalization requirements. The two are mutually inconsistent.
That case however concerned citizenship, not the Article II requirement to qualify to be president. I am convinced from the 1790 statute that the Framers intended for people in his status to be deemed natural born.