Donate

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Ted Cruz Misrepresents the Law and His Being a Natural Born Citizen at Town Hall Meeting

Ted Cruz Misrepresents the Law and His Being a Natural Born Citizen at Town Hall Meeting

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 18, 2016

Image result for originalism vs living constitution

During a CNN Republican presidential town hall in Greenville, South Carolina on Wednesday, February 17, 2016, a self-identified supporter of Sen. Ted Cruz asked him to explain why he believes that he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution even though he was born in Canada.  "In order to prevent future controversy and possible litigation will you please justify, constitutionally, your legal right to be president of the United States as it relates to your natural born status?" Julie Hershey asked Cruz. The full exchange can be seen on video at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-eligibility-cnn-town-hall 

Cruz, in a style and tone as if he were arguing his case before the U.S. Supreme Court, said that he was happy that Ms. Hershey (the Justice) asked him that question.  He then answered that “the law under the Constitution and federal law have been clear from the very first days of the Republic.  The child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen.”  He continued that if two Americans travel overseas and have a child there, the child is “a U.S. citizen by virtue of birth.”  The child born to U.S. service members overseas is “a natural born citizen by virtue of the child’s parents.”   The child born to U.S. citizen missionaries overseas “are natural born citizens.”  John McCain, who was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents, “was a natural born citizen.”  George Romney, who was born in Mexico to two U.S. citizen parents “was a natural born citizen.” 

Then Cruz reached back to the early years of the Republic.  He said that the First Congress, which contained many Founders and Framers and who wrote the first naturalization Act, “explicitly defined the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad as a natural born citizen.”   

Cruz then admitted that he was born in Canada.  But he added that he was born there to a mother who was a U.S. citizen.  He concludes that therefore “I was a citizen by birth by virtue of my mother’s citizenship.  So, I have never been naturalized.  I’ve never breathed a breath of fresh air on this planet when I was not a U.S. citizen.  It was the act of being born that made me a U.S. citizen.” 

Cruz then concluded that “under the law the question is clear.  There will still be some who try to make political mischief on it, but as a legal matter this is clear and straightforward.”  He finalized by saying that any suit brought by Donald Trump against him would not be meritorious. 
~~~~~

So is Cruz telling the truth about what the law provided historically and what it provides today regarding whether he is a natural born citizen and whether he is under the Constitution a natural born citizen?  The answer is “no.” 

A natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth and birth alone.  But birth does not exist in a vacuum.  There are circumstances that exist at the time of birth.  Those circumstances are, among many, the parents to whom one is born and the place where one is born.  In order to have a valid definition of the natural born citizen, it is necessary that we take these birth circumstances and make them part of a definition. 

There does, indeed, exist a definition that contains the necessary and sufficient birth circumstances that must exist in order for one to be a natural born citizen.  The historical and legal record demonstrates that in order to be a citizen by virtue of birth alone, one must be born in the country to parents who were its citizen at the time of the child’s birth.  Indeed, a natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sections 212 to 217 (1758) (1797) ("The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first”); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898) ("The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle").  As we shall see, all other birth circumstances, i.e., either not being born in the country or not being born to citizen parents, do not produce citizenship by virtue of birth alone. 

Birth in the country while subject to its jurisdiction, when not born to two U.S. citizen parents, produces citizenship at birth but only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.  That one satisfies the material elements of the Amendment does not make the very Amendment, the source of the citizenship, disappear. It is still by virtue of the Amendment itself, and not by virtue of birth alone, that one becomes a citizen of the United States at birth.   

Birth out of the country to one or two U.S. citizen parents produces citizenship at birth, but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress.  That one satisfies the material elements of the Act does not make the very Act, the source of the citizenship, disappear.  It is still by virtue of the naturalization Act itself and not by virtue of birth alone that one becomes a citizen of the United States at birth.   

To make my point more clear, someone might be considered to be a good person by virtue of having a lot of money.  But that money does not exist in a vacuum, for it could have been acquired by various means.  It could have been acquired by hard and honest work, inheritance, lottery, gift, finding it on the ground, or even stealing it.  The same with being a natural born citizen.  One can be a citizen of the United States at birth by various means.  But the only means that was ever recognized by our history and our U.S. Supreme Court is the means of being born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The recognition of that means for becoming a natural born citizen does not depend upon any positive law.  Becoming a citizen of the United States at birth by any other means, e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress, makes one a citizen of the United States at birth, but, needing those laws in order to acquire the citizen-at-birth status that they bestow upon those who satisfy their conditions, it does not make one a natural born citizen. 

Cruz cites to and relies upon the First Congress and its Naturalization Act of 1790 to show that he is a natural born citizen.  But his reliance there is misplaced.  This Act does not help him.  If anything, this Act and the one that followed, that of 1795, when read in tandem confirm that the Framers did not view someone like Cruz, who was born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, to be a natural born citizen. 

This naturalization Act did not nor could it make anyone a natural born citizen.  When the Constitution was adopted and ratified, it already contained a definition of a natural born citizen.  That definition was binding upon the nation.  

The Constitution did not give to Congress the constitutional power to define a natural born citizen.  The Constitution also did not give to Congress the power to amend it through a statute.  Rather, the Constitution requires a duly ratified amendment in order to amend it.  The 1790 Act is just a statute and surely could not amend the Constitution’s meaning of a natural born citizen. 

Since 1790, Congress has for policy reasons seen the need, exactly for the reason that they are not natural born citizens, to naturalize children of U.S. citizens born out of the United States. 

Congress did not explicitly define a natural born citizen in the 1790 Act.  It only said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizens “shall be considered as natural born citizens.”  This is no different from saying that a couple’s adopted children shall be considered as that couple's natural children.  In making that statement, the person is not defining that couple's natural born children. 

In the Naturalization Act of 1790, the First Congress naturalized children to enjoy all the privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.  A careful reading of the statute’s text shows that Congress did not give or change the definition of a natural born citizen, but rather only naturalized children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents.  What Congress did, by using the language “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” was to only extend the privileges, immunities, and rights of a true natural born citizen to those children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, to the extent that it could constitutionally do so.  That extension could not include the privilege of being eligible to the Office of President. 

Only the Acts that are in effect when one is born apply to the question of that person’s citizenship status at the time of birth.  Cruz was not born when the 1790 Act was in effect (only from 1790 to 1795) and therefore he cannot claim any status to being a natural born citizen under it even if the Act purported to and could constitutionally grant to anyone the status of a natural born citizen. 
The 1790 Act also required that the child be born to both a father and mother who were U.S. citizens.  Cruz was born only to a U.S. citizen mother.  Not being born also to a U.S. citizen father, Cruz would not even be a citizen of the United States under the early naturalization Acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1805, and 1855) and is made a citizen only because Congress eventually did away with the doctrine of coverture (allowing husbands and wives to have their own citizenship rather than wives acquiring that of their husbands) in 1922 with the Cable Act.  If born between 1802 and 1855, Cruz would not even be a citizen, even if he was born to a U.S. citizen father and mother.  Cruz got lucky because Congress in 1934 passed a naturalization Act (Act of May 24, 1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 797) which for the first time allowed a person born in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father to be a citizen of the United States.  That naturalization rule was carried forward in the Nationality Act of 1940 (H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137, enacted October 14, 1940) and the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952), the latter being the statute in effect when Cruz was born and without which, along with those of 1934 and 1940, Cruz would be an alien. 

In any event, the Third Congress repealed the 1790 Act when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”  In 1795, the Third Congress, clearly indicated that Congress never intended to suggest that those persons were eligible to be President.  Rather, what it meant to do was to only naturalize them to enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, who  were not eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, unless also natural born citizens. Representative James Madison, along with the entire Third Congress, and with the approval of President George Washington, told us in 1795 through the Naturalization Act of 1795, that a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents was not a "natural born citizen" of the United States, but rather a "citizen" of the United States.  By surgically changing this language as it did, the Third Congress, which still had many Founders and Framers among its ranks as did the First Congress, with the lead of then-Representative James Madison and with the approval of President Washington, made it known that Congress did not intend in 1790 to grant the status of natural born citizen to anyone born out of the United States, even if born to U.S. citizen parents. 
All subsequent naturalization Acts of Congress provide that Cruz is a citizen of the United States, even as we shall see below the one which applies to his birth in 1970.  But yet Cruz tells us that even though he was born out of the United States, because he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, he is a natural born citizen.  Clearly, he is not telling the truth, for Cruz is not an Article II natural born citizen under the very words of James Madison and President Washington.  At best, he would be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under the naturalization Act that was in effect when he was born in 1970, which in any case is not and cannot be that of 1790 which was long ago repealed and which being born only to a U.S. citizen mother he did not satisfy in any event.   
   
So as we can see, Cruz cannot possibly be a natural born citizen through the Naturalization Act of 1790.  Reading the Act of 1790 and 1795 together confirms that the Framers did not view someone like Cruz, born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, to be a natural born citizen.  On the contrary, they would have viewed him as an “alien or foreigner” in need of naturalization by Congress.   

Cruz also relies upon the Congressional naturalization Act that was in effect when he was born in 1970.  That Act is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952.  When enacted in 1952, the INA at section 301, required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated:

(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.

The modern version of this statute is found at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g).

Hence, a naturalization Act of Congress that applied at the time of his birth, does make Cruz, a “citizen” of the United States “at birth.”  That naturalization Act of Congress naturalized Cruz at birth to be a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth.  This Act does not make him a natural born citizen.  First, a naturalization Act passed 165 years after the Constitution was adopted surely cannot inform on the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen.  Second, the Act is a naturalization Act.  Third, Acts of Congress do not and cannot amend the Constitution.  Fourth, the text of the Act does not use the clause “natural born citizen.”  Fifth, Congress required the U.S. citizen parents to satisfy a physical presence in the United States requirement.  A natural born citizen surely would not be subject to such a condition.  Sixth, as we saw for Barack Obama, simply being a citizen “at birth” or “by birth” is not sufficient to be a natural born citizen, for one may qualify for that birth status under the Fourteenth Amendment or under a naturalization Act of Congress as Cruz does, but not also under the common law which defines a natural born citizen. Because Cruz does not satisfy the American common law definition of a natural born citizen, he must look to positive law such as an Act of Congress for his citizenship status.

Cruz is not a U.S. citizen by virtue of birth alone.  Cruz is not a natural born citizen by virtue of his mother’s birth alone.  Rather he is a citizen by virtue of a naturalization statute without which he would be an alien.  See: 

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898) (explained that one born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, not being a citizen at common law can only be a naturalized citizen through a naturalization Act of Congress and that if it were not for a naturalization Act of Congress, he or she would be an alien and not a citizen); 

United States v. Perkins, 17 Fed. Supp. 177 (D.D.C. 1936) (petitioner contended, among other things, that he was born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother which made him a natural born citizen, but the court citing Wong Kim Ark, whose statements the court found not to be dicta as petitioner had contended, explained that petitioner could not be a natural born citizen, but rather at most a naturalized citizen so made by naturalization Acts of Congress);
Schaufus v. Attorney General, 45 Fed. Supp. 61 (1942) (a foreign born child was a naturalized citizen within the meaning of an expatriation statute);

Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 Fed.2d 209 (10th Cir. 1951) (“There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; [footnote 1] and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen [footnote 2],” in footnote 1 citing to Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5 N.E.2d 68, 70; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 45 F. Supp. 61, 67, and in footnote 2 citing to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5 N.E.2d 68, 70; United States v. Kellar, C.C.Ill., 13 F. 82, 85; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 45 F. Supp. 61, 67.  The Court held that if the appellant became a citizen of the United States at birth under Revised Statutes, § 1993, the appellant, “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.” Id. at 211);   

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961) (explained that if a child is not born in the country, the child needs a naturalization Act of the sovereign authority to make that child for all intents and purposes a citizen and without such naturalization the child would be an alien);
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) (a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be a citizen of the United States only if Congress allows it through one of its naturalization Acts and such person therefore becomes a citizen of the United States “at birth” through naturalization without which the person would be an alien); and

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (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 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.”). 

Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” by virtue of his birth circumstances which qualify him for the status only because a naturalization Act of Congress (a positive law) says so, not by virtue of his birth circumstances alone.  At best, he is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” by the very text of the statute.  He is a “citizen” at birth of the United States, Canada, and maybe Cuba also.  But he is not an Article II natural born citizen which could not under U.S. law possibly allow one to be simultaneously a citizen at birth of other nations.  Renouncing his birthright Canadian citizenship as he did in 2014 does not nor can it retroactively change the birth circumstances with which he was born.  He was not born with unity of citizenship and allegiance at birth and therefore the Framers would not have trusted him with the great and singular civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Cruz insists that he is a natural born citizen because he was not “naturalized.”  But as I have shown above, we do not validly get to the conclusion that Cruz is a natural born citizen by proclaiming that he "was never naturalized," when first, he has not satisfied the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen with its necessary and sufficient conditions, and second, we may have a different definition and perception from Cruz of what "naturalized" means.  Getting to one being a natural born citizen by saying one was not naturalized depends upon one’s definition of naturalization and not upon the definition of natural born citizen.  Hence, the approach is not honest, for Cruz is not starting with the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen, which provides its necessary and sufficient conditions, but rather getting to the status by telling us that anyone who is a citizen and not "naturalized" is a natural born citizen.  The false game is one of pretending to define "naturalized" instead of truly defining "natural born citizen" under its constitutional definition.  But Cruz’s argument that he was never naturalized is false, for I have shown that under all the laws of the United States, he was naturalized although at birth. 

Cruz looks to Senator John McCain for help.  But there is no help there.  Under the common law, the status of birth in the country is also extended to children born physically out of the territory of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who are on diplomatic service for or serving the military of the United States.  These children are “reputed born” in the United States and do not need a naturalization Act of Congress to make them citizens of the United States.  See Vattel, § 217. “Children born in the armies of the state or in the house of its minister at a foreign court. For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.”). 

John McCain was born outside the territory of the United States (in Panama), but not outside its jurisdiction, to U.S. citizen parents serving the national defense of the United States.  Because his parents, serving the armies of the United States, are considered as not having voluntarily quitted the territory of the United States and as having remained under the jurisdiction of the United States, their son born to them in the foreign territory is reputed born in the United States.  Hence, McCain was born "in" the United States to U.S. citizen parents.  He is therefore a natural born citizens. Cruz’s parents had voluntarily left the United States to pursue private economic interests in Canada.  Neither Cruz’s father nor mother were serving the national defense of the United States (serving in the military or some other comparable capacity) while in Canada.   So, while in Canada, Cruz’s parents were under the strict jurisdiction of Canada and not that of the United States.  Additionally, Cruz’s father was an alien.  Hence, Cruz cannot benefit from the McCain rule. 

Cruz also looks to former Governor George Romney for help.  But there too, there is no help.  Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents.  Initially he was the front runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 1968 election.  But he withdrew from the contest in early 1968. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney . Hence, he never advanced far enough for the issue of his place of birth to be considered in any serious way. 

So, Cruz may be a citizen of the United States at birth.  But he became such only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress, not by virtue of his birth alone or by being born to a U.S. citizen mother alone.  Cruz was able to breathe fresh air as a U.S. citizen all his life only because Congress through a naturalization Act so allowed him.  Without that naturalization Act, Cruz would have breathed fresh air only as a Canadian and Cuban citizen.  Cruz therefore is not nor can he be a natural born citizen. 

Cruz tries to escape the requirements of the natural born citizen clause by characterizing the resolution of its meaning as a political question.  But the matter of who is a natural born citizen is not a political question as Cruz likes to characterize it.  It is a clear and direct question that arises under the Constitution which requires that anyone born after its adoption must be a natural born citizen in order to be President.  The definition of a natural born citizen has always been and continues to be under the supreme law of the land a child born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. 

Yes, Mr. Cruz, the matter is clear and "settled."  The historical and legal record and reason show that you are not a natural born citizen.  I am really turned off by Cruz and his supporters claiming to be conservatives and defenders of the Constitution and then acting so deceitfully and dismissively on the question of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen, which, being a requirement of presidential eligibility, is such a fundamental requirement of the Constitution and a safety feature for the survival and perpetuation of the republic.  

Any lawsuit brought by presidential candidate Donald Trump against presidential candidate Ted Cruz on his not being a natural born citizen will be successful. 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 18, 2016
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2016
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved   




42 comments:

United Natural Born Citizens said...

Please suspend the extraneous narratives and stick to the actual laws.

The Constitution IS statutory in its construction and once ratified the term of words, “natural born citizen” became statutory by the LEGAL nature for which it was used.

There is no extra constitutional authority that manifests a citizenship status at will while ignoring the FACT that the identified “attendant circumstances” are the means of identifying that manifestation.

The 1790 Act stood as the Law of the Land for five (5) years with the children born anywhere in the world to the wife of a US Citizen father being US natural born Citizens and not otherwise.

The 1795 Act served only to “limit” where a US natural born Citizen shall be born.

The 1922 Cable Act abrogated the doctrine of matrimonial coverture and loosed the bonds of marriage of citizen parents, but did not and could not, short of an Amendment, loose the requirement of both parents being US Citizens.

This proposition of Law is supportable at the SCOTUS while while others tend to perpetuate the existing ambiguity.

I know because I’ve been there, done THAT.

http://goo.gl/4IzKlb

United Natural Born Citizens said...

The Constitution IS statutory in its construction and once ratified the term of words, “natural born citizen” became statutory by the LEGAL nature for which it was used.

There is no extra constitutional authority that manifests a citizenship status at will while ignoring the FACT that the identified “attendant circumstances” are the means of identifying that manifestation.

The 1790 Act stood as the Law of the Land for five (5) years with the children born anywhere in the world to the wife of a US Citizen father being US natural born Citizens and not otherwise.

The 1795 Act served only to “limit” where a US natural born Citizen shall be born.

The 1922 Cable Act abrogated the doctrine of matrimonial coverture and loosed the bonds of marriage of citizen parents, but did not and could not, short of an Amendment, loose the requirement of both parents being US Citizens.

This proposition of Law is reviewable by the SCOTUS while others tend to only perpetuate the existing ambiguity.


http://goo.gl/4IzKlb

cfkerchner said...

Another great piece Mario. I posted a link to it in my blog and blasted it out via Twitter and Facebook and eBlast too. Keep up the excellent work. https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/ted-cruz-misrepresents-the-law-and-his-being-a-natural-born-citizen-at-town-hall-meeting/ CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

cfkerchner said...

Breaking news out of the NY Board of Elections re Cruz and Rubio: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/breaking-news-ny-state-boe-receives-flurry-of-natural-born-objections-to-rubio-and-cruz/ CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Commander Kerchner,

Thank you so very much for all that you do. It is highly appreciated not only by me but by countless others.

Lou Cruz said...

Mr. Apuzzo: your response to Cruzs' obfuscation on his ineligibility issue is as usual magnificent, thank you.I use your arguments and references in my discussions with people on the topic whenever the opportunity presents itself. I am a fan of you, Edwin Viera and Herb Titus. May I suggest you accept Mark Levins challenge to debate him publically,on thedefinition of NBC and Cruzs' eligibility quandary. Personally, I think you would demolish this pompous, arrogant, bombastic, self aggrandizing, conceited, smug, ostentatious,supercilious and incredibly loud mouthed so called Constitutional Expert, who has made a recent career of denigrating and belittling us " Birthers".
Thank You!
Lou Cruz, M.D.

phil stone said...

Read about the 1952 act. It appears that Cruz was required to take an oath of citizenship when he turned 21. From his comments he may not have done that. Is he a US citizen?

Harold Winard said...

I echo Dr. Lou Cruz's comments above and hope that Mario will have a chance to debate Levin live, on-air. I remain skeptical, however, that Levin would accept such a challenge since he's certainly smart enough to know he's on the losing side.

Harold Winard said...

I echo Dr. Lou Cruz's comments and hope that Mario will have a chance to debate Levin live, on-air. I am skeptical, however, since Levin is not likely to accept the challenge. He's too smart a lawyer not to know that he's on the losing side. Levin and the others are not motivated to defend Cruz, Obama, and the others out of conviction but rather out of fear. I'd sure like to know who or what is frightening them.

leo derosia said...

Cruz lies when he says any child of a citizen is a nbc, the na 1790 says children of citizens of the us meaning 2 us citizen parents. He never mentions na 1795 either when wording was changed to merely citizen of the us from considered as natural born citizen in na 1795. The guy is a real fraud phony Christian. A real Christian would not knowingly lie like this and then have the gall to preach about being a fearless defender of Constitution....if this clown was born in canada in 1791 to a alien and a us citizen then I might give him a pass as a nbc but only if the father was the us citizen.

leo derosia said...

I disagree that a trump lawsuit will be successful, the courts take their marching orders from the pols on this subject. I hope I am wrong

Tru Justice said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/ted-cruz-is-a-natural-bor_b_8930752.html

Stan said...

As usual, I appreciate very much your erudition on this subject, Attty Apuzzo. But I have a query. It's one thing to quote Sect. 212 of de Vattel. But in Sect. 215, he makes the case that "children follow the condition of their fathers..." and thus, it doesn't matter where the child is born. The child is a natural born citizen of the citizenry of the father - jus sanguinis applying; not necessary for jus soli also to be applying.

And since the mother is no longer automatically One with the father, the child could still be a 'natural born' citizen even if the mother were of a different nationality, because citizenship STILL descends from the father.

Comment??

Mick said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

Wouldn't "considered as a natural born Citizen" mean "eligible for the Presidency" (how could it not?)? Do you have any historical proof that it did not mean "eligible for the Presidency" during that 5 year window (are their debates of Congress available from this time?)? Afterall, "citizens at the time of the ratification..." were not nbC but were eligible (we know why). I see it as perhaps a benefit for the early Diplomats who traveled long and dangerous overseas missions, and who being Diplomats, as you pointed out, their children would be "purported born in the US" (Vattel SS. 217). Granted, it does not say "diplomats", and maybe that's why they got rid of "natural born" in 1795.

Why would they use the "natural born" terminology if it did not mean eligible for the presidency, when they could have extended the privileges and immunities of US citizenship with just "citizen" (which they did in 1795)? Some have said the use of nbC was a "mistake", but I don't think so.

But yeah, for Cruz to try to say that a statute from 1790 proves he is eligible reeks of untruth, and the floating of that idea by Katyal, Clement, Maskel et al., coupled with 7 FAM 1131.6-3 (that citizens at birth are "not naturalized") is proof that this whole controversy is manufactured for a desired result.

Cruz and others try to make "naturalization" only as a "process" (with residency requirements, a test and oath), when the very definition in INS 1952(23) is "conferring of nationality after birth by ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER." It could be by statute, treaty, collective naturalization, or by the Constitution itself (as it did in "or a citizen at the time..."). Gray in Wong Kim Ark started the confusion by saying that those born in the US "need no naturalization", but Afroyim v. Rusk seemed to disagree with that, and specifically said that WKA "was conferred citizenship by the 14A" (naturalized by the 14th Amendment as born subject to the jurisdiction). I think that the 14A IS A VEHICLE of NATURALIZATION, where one is either born and subject to the jurisdiction of the US or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction. Who at birth is "subject to the jurisdiction" is to be decided by Congressional statute (8 US 1401). The cases that say that one is either "born or naturalized" started the confusion. Both are naturalized, but the separation of "born" and "naturalized" led to the acceptance of "birthright citizenship". As you know the early naturalization statutes naturalized the children of aliens at the time of the parents naturalization even if born in the US. Do you view the 14A as a vehicle of naturalization?

Anyway, it seems that allowing "birthright citizenship" without regard to the foreign allegiance of those born of aliens in the US is contrary to the 14A equal protection clause itself. Those that naturalize by oath are required to "renounce all allegiance to foreign powers" yet those given "birthright citizenship" to alien parents do not make such renunciation. Even the Revised statutes after the 14A define "Citizen" as one "subject to the jurisdiction of the US and no other foreign power".

It will be hard to put that Genie back i the bottle.

Please explain. Thanks

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Tru Justice,

I read the article you link to. It presents nothing new. It is a repeat of the Cruz position. I covered it all in my article and shown how the position is wrong. If you want to post a comment showing how I am wrong, I will be happy to look at it and respond.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Stan,

Vattel explained in Section 215 of his highly acclaimed and influential treatise:

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
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. (59) 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; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 215 (1758) (1797).

In Section 212, Vattel distinguished the “citizens” from the “natives, or natural born citizens.” Vattel stated that the question asked was whether that foreign-born child was a "citizen," not whether that child was a "native, or natural born citizen." Vattel’s failure to state the question as if it asked whether they were natives or natural born citizens cannot be considered some oversight or unintentional, given that just in Section 212 he was careful to articulate and distinguish the difference between the two classes, with the latter class reserved only to the children born in a country to parents who were its citizens. Also note that when speaking about the parents, Vattel always referred to them as “citizens,” and never as “natural born citizens,” thus demonstrating that all natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens given his definition of a natural born citizen.

Vattel explained that the municipal laws of the child's parents' nation had to be followed when determining whether that foreign-born child was a citizen of his parent's nation. In other words, if those laws said that such a child was a citizen, then the child was. If those laws said that the child was not or did not provide for such a child, then the child was not. Vattel added that by nature alone, the place of birth could not take away from the child what nature had given to the child, and that such a child inherited from his or her parents (through the father) their citizenship.

But Vattel explained that the laws of nature applied to the affairs of nations became the law of nations. Vattel’s law of nations parents did not live in a state of nature, but rather in civil and political society. Hence, Vattel added that the child's parents' nation, for various reasons, could pass political or civil laws which would take precedent over what nature ordained. Vattel also explained that the parents would not have quitted their native country and if they did, their child would not inherit their native citizenship. If the parents would have become permanent inhabitants of the foreign nation, then a child born to them in the foreign nation would inherit from them the status of a permanent inhabitant, not that of a citizen of their native nation. Hence, we can see that Vattel was only speaking about plain and simple membership in a nation and not the status of a natural born citizen, for the parents in that situation would still have been citizens of their native nation, but become permanent residents of that foreign nation. Additionally, that child could not be a natural born citizen under Vattel’s own definition of the clause that he gave in Section 212. This principle also applied to Vattel's Section 212 natural born citizen, requiring that the child be born in the country to parents who were its citizens and if not, then not even a citizen of that nation in which born.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Continued . . .

You will note that Congress in the early naturalization Acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and in need of naturalization. Except for the period between 1802 and 1855, Congress has also always seen fit to provide through its naturalization Acts for children born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents. We saw what happens when a nation does not provide for children born out of its territory and jurisdiction to its citizens. Under the Naturalization Act of 1802 and until the Naturalization Act of 1855, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who were not citizens prior to 1802 were aliens who could become U.S. citizens only through naturalization, not derivatively through their parents naturalization for the parents were already citizens, but only on their own upon reaching the age of majority.

Hence, in Section 215, Vattel was talking about a nation's positive laws making citizens of children born out of the country, not making natural born citizens of those children. In referring to those foreign-born children, Vattel did not in the least suggest that the citizenship status that their parents’ nation may bestow upon them through its positive laws would somehow change the definition of a natural born citizen which is clearly and plainly stated in Section 212, without any exceptions. The changing definition of citizenship of which Vattel spoke in Section 215 referred only to children born out of the country who Vattel saw as citizens if born to citizen parents, not as natural born citizens who also had to be born in the country, and only if the parents' nation provided for that status through its positive laws. Surely, if those children were natural born citizens, they would not have needed those civil or political laws to seal their citizenship fate, which is the case of the natural born citizens. In fact, Minor v. Happersett (1875) explained how Virginia Minor did not need any law, including the Fourteenth Amendment to make her a natural born citizen and thus ipso facto a citizen. We have seen Congress since 1795 (it repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790) constantly change its naturalization Acts which it applied to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents and to alien parents. On the other hand, Congress has never sought to change the meaning of a natural born citizen, not even through the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, Section 215 does not contradict my position that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. If anything, it shows that only in a state of nature does membership (what Vattel calls being a citizen when applied to civil and political society) automatically follow the parents no matter where one is born. Section 215 also supports my position, for it shows that in civil and political society (not in a state of nature) positive laws (like Congress’s naturalization Acts) are needed to make children born out of the country to citizen parents citizens of their parents' nation. Given that in civil and political society such positive laws are needed to make them citizens of their parents’ nation, those children are at best “citizens;” they are not and cannot be “natural born citizens.” Keep in mind how the Third Congress removed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Also keep in mind that children born out of the country to citizen parents who were serving abroad in a diplomatic capacity or in the armies of the state are reputed born in the country and therefore natural born citizens. See Vattel, Section 217 and John McCain.

Mick said...

HEARING DATE SET IN FLA.
MARCH 4, 2016 11AM

CASE # 15022044

http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Web2/CaseSearch/Details/?caseid=ODM2MDkxNg%3d%3d-E8D9FT10TQs%3d&caseNum=CACE15022044&category=CV

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

Mick,

Here are my responses to your questions and points:

1. Wouldn't "considered as a natural born Citizen" mean "eligible for the Presidency" (how could it not?)? Do you have any historical proof that it did not mean "eligible for the Presidency" during that 5 year window (are their debates of Congress available from this time?)? Afterall, "citizens at the time of the ratification..." were not nbC but were eligible (we know why).

~~~~~

Upon its adoption and ratification, the Constitution already had incorporated a definition of a natural born citizen. That definition was a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. There were no naturalization Acts of Congress in place at that time. Congress could not come along after the Constitution was ratified and change its definitions, especially the eligibility requirements for President.

The early naturalization Acts of Congress were retroactive. Any child that was born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents and who was “considered as a natural born citizen” was, of course, a “Citizen” of the United States. If that child acquired that status retroactively and therefore as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution, then it can be argued that that child would have been grandfathered for eligibility as a “Citizen” of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” On the other hand, if the Framers did not intend for such retroactive application to be applied to Presidential eligibility (“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”), only those persons who were already in being and citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were so eligible, unless they were natural born citizens.

2. I see it as perhaps a benefit for the early Diplomats who traveled long and dangerous overseas missions, and who being Diplomats, as you pointed out, their children would be "purported born in the US" (Vattel SS. 217). Granted, it does not say "diplomats", and maybe that's why they got rid of "natural born" in 1795.

~~~~~

Under the common law (both English and American), children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents engaged in diplomatic work were reputed born in the country and therefore natural born citizens. Being reputed born in the country and being born to citizen parents, they did not need any naturalization Act to make them either citizens or natural born citizens.

3. Why would they use the "natural born" terminology if it did not mean eligible for the presidency, when they could have extended the privileges and immunities of US citizenship with just "citizen" (which they did in 1795)? Some have said the use of nbC was a "mistake", but I don't think so.

~~~~~

The Third Congress realized just this and that is why they changed the language from “shall be considered as natural born citizens” (1790) to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States” (1795). If Madison, Washington, and other Founders and Framers had been happy with “natural born citizen,” there simply is no reason why they would take the trouble to surgically replace it with “citizen of the United States.” Remember that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 said that in the future only a natural born citizen” was eligible to be President. Surely, Madison, Washington & Co. were well aware of that requirement. With that in mind, they specifically changed the language. Such repeal and amendment can only mean that they did not want those foreign-born children to be thought of as natural born citizens, even though they never said that they were actually natural born citizens, but rather only to be “considered as natural born citizens,” with all the privileges, immunities, and rights of such.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

Also, the English naturalization statutes had used the nomenclature “natural-born subject.” There was no “natural-born subject” clause in Great Britain that related to who could be King. But in the U.S. there was the natural born citizen clause that related to being President and so when the clause “natural born citizen” was used, it had significant consequences for the Office of President and the nation. The First Congress probably did not realize that there was no need to use “natural born citizen” and that its use created questions as to what it meant. Also, grandfathered citizens were, in any event, eligible to be President. Hence, Madison & Co. changed it in 1795, which change did not damage the grandfathered citizens but made matters clear going forward.

The 1790 and 1795 Act read in tandem is incontrovertible evidence that children born in the United States to alien parents were aliens and that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were considered as citizens of the United States, but not considered as natural born citizens. Hence, the Acts prove without any doubt that a natural born citizen was a child born in the United States or in its jurisdiction to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

To the degree that we can conclude that the First Congress actually intended to add to the definition of a natural born citizen and to make children born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States constitutionally eligible to be President, the statute would have probably been unconstitutional. Don’t forget that Congress was just getting started and it was capable of writing unconstitutional statutes, as it is also still today. After all, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 ( 1803) was exactly about part of the First Congress’s Judiciary Act of 1789 being unconstitutional.

4. Gray in Wong Kim Ark started the confusion by saying that those born in the US "need no naturalization."

~~~~~

Persons born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction do not need naturalization under any Act of Congress. But if not born to two U.S. citizen parents, they need naturalization under the Fourteenth Amendment and become such citizens only by virtue of that Amendment and not by virtue of the common law that defines a natural born citizen.

5. Who at birth is "subject to the jurisdiction" is to be decided by Congressional statute (8 US 1401).

~~~~~

Under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress can “enforce” what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, provided that in so doing it does not violate the command of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), unless Congress chose to pass a constitutional amendment providing otherwise or the U.S. Supreme Court re-visited Wong Kim Ark and provided a different meaning to the jurisdiction clause.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

6. Do you view the 14A as a vehicle of naturalization?

~~~~~

I have been arguing since 2008 that persons born in the United States to one or two alien parents who are accepted as citizens of the United States are naturalized to be citizens of the United States at birth by the Fourteenth Amendment. I was probably the first one to ever say that. The Obots had a baby when I said that. My position makes perfect sense. Wong Kim Ark told us that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the English common law jus soli rule. Consider that the English common law naturalized at birth children born in the King’s dominion to alien parents to be English natural born subjects. See Vattel, Section 214 (Section 214, entitled "Naturalization:" “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstances of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.”); Calvin’s Case (1608) (with Parliament refusing to do so, the court naturalized at birth Calvin, who was born in the King’s dominion to Scottish parents, to be an English natural-born subject).

7. Anyway, it seems that allowing "birthright citizenship" without regard to the foreign allegiance of those born of aliens in the US is contrary to the 14A equal protection clause itself. Those that naturalize by oath are required to "renounce all allegiance to foreign powers" yet those given "birthright citizenship" to alien parents do not make such renunciation. Even the Revised statutes after the 14A define "Citizen" as one "subject to the jurisdiction of the US and no other foreign power".

~~~~~

I do not see any equal protection problem there. A nation is free to decide for public policy reasons that those given “at birth” citizenship do not have to give any oath of allegiance and those who are made citizens after birth do. On the other hand, what this difference of treatment shows is that those who under U.S. law are born with U.S. citizenship and conflicting allegiances to some foreign power cannot be natural born citizens. We expect our citizens who are naturalized after birth to have sole allegiance to the United States. Still, we do not allow them to be President. By the same token, persons who are born in the United States to alien parents and who therefore are born with dual and conflicting allegiances cannot be recognized at natural born citizens, for they were born with the same conflicting allegiance as were those who naturalized after birth. To add insult to injury, we deny natural born citizen status to the former but would grant it to the latter, even though the former take an oath of sole allegiance, but the latter do not. The oath of allegiance has been part of our national culture since the Revolution and thereafter. It was only through undivided an unwavering allegiance to the Revolution that it was able to succeed and give us a new America. The Framers would never had allowed a person born which allegiance to a foreign power under U.S. law to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mike Monahan said...

You do realize this has been studied and found not to be a real issues right? http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mike Monahan,

I am familiar with the Neal Katyal & Paul Clement article. I have written an article on it, demonstrating how I disagree with their conclusion. Here it is: Mario Apuzzo, "A Response to Neal Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen (March 13, 2015)," available at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html . This current article, among the many more that I have written, is my further refutation to what they have written.

Other than just pushing the link to their article, do you have anything to add which refutes what I have written?

leo derosia said...

I read a article by Deroy Murdock about the subject of cruz being a nbc. He said that most legal scholars (except the ones that count of course like Chief Justice Morrison Waite) think that cruz is a nbc but the dems will still take this to court even after mercilessly ridiculing birthers for last 8 years. Deroy did mention that if cruz was born in Houston to American parents then there would be no doubt he was a nbc. Trump only talks about cruz being born in canada but the biggest problem is the alien father which automatically dqs him from the presidency.

Sibyl Smith said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

There is a possibility that at the time of Ted Cruz's birth, Mrs. Cruz was not still a US citizen, but had become a British citizen, due to her years living, working, marrying, divorcing and having a child in England, and then had become a Canadian citizen while working, having a child in Canada.

Tax returns, CRBA documents would be needed to prove Ted Cruz was a citizen before he applied for a US Passport to travel to Europe while in high school, or before 2014 when he is said to have renounced his Canadian citizenship.

Cruz's sealed papers need to be unsealed for the sake of our nation.

America doesn't need another junior senator, word-weaseling lawyer, with sealed papers, dubious citizenship, dubious eligibility, dubious loyalty, dubious honesty about his actions/votes/agenda as our president. We already have one of those in office right now.

Melvin E Holliday said...

Great article, but, trying to get those that support Ted Cruz to read what is clearly against their interpretation of our law and the Constitution is like pulling teeth without Novocaine.They simply won't do it yet they will continue to argue that he is eligible and give their own made up excuses why they think that. Melvin E. Holliday.

leo derosia said...

Trump just mentioned a video on powdered wig society about nbc on twitter. The lady atty talked about vattel,david ramsey, the 14th, early presidents only being citizens at time of ratification(should've said adoption). She said both parents have to be us citizens to be a natural born citizen but left out also being born in the us. She also said rubio and cruz are not nbcs....glad to see trump is heading in the right direction on this. As sybil says, we do not need another word weaseling lawyer with sealed papers and dubious honesty and loyalty as fake cic. Cruzs father is a Christian pastor I think and he should speak out about his lying phony Christian son

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Leo,

Can you provide some links for us so we can see what the attorney said.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ted Cruz says that he is going to fight to protect the Constitution as President of the United States, but he is not a natural born citizen. So, it looks like he would have to start with kicking himself out of the White House if he ever got there.

Leo Derosia said...

Mario, the link is on trumps twitter feed from Saturday, Feb 20. Stephanopoulos even asked him about it this morning and trump said he does not really know if Rubio is eligible. Rubio said a bunch of hot air about being a NBC today. You should contact trumps campaign and explain to them that his top 2 contenders are not even eligible to be a US President. I have lost respect for trey gowdy after he endorsed Rubio and it is sickening to see another potential presidential fraud like Nikki haley give little Marco a hug, what a bunch of lying phonys these politicians are. Leo

William St. George said...

Here is how a "scholar" deals with the citizenship matter; this one had not occurred to me: "Michael Ramsey, a professor at the University of San Diego law school, has contended in his scholarly article on this matter that the Constitution gives Congress plenary power to determine all citizenship status, citing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states, “Congress shall have power ... to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Ramsey, who considers himself an "originalist" — a person who believes the Constitution should be interpreted the way the Founders and the ratifying state conventions meant it — makes the argument that this would include the constitutional authority to define what is a natural born citizen, which, he says, is what they did in 1790." I find this a pretty remarkable interpretation.

Irene Flick said...

Mick's case number and link to the Broward County Clerk of the Courts take me to a dead end.

JAMRPB said...

I enjoyed reading all these comments ...& the article was fantastic. I will be using this link for all the detractors. Thank you for your steadfast STAND DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION.

Ray Noyb said...

I disagree with the author in that I believe the original intent to have been to require 2 citizen parents with the place of birth being irrelevant.

I will also point out that the 14th amendment in section 1 actually requires 2 types of jurisdiction to be present simultaneously in order to confer citizen {not natural born} status. Read the sentence carefully. It says everyone born or naturalized here is a citizen subject to the jurisdiction thereof. UNDERSTAND THIS > When this sentence requires birth HERE it is recognizing the fact that birth in the jurisdiction is require. Therefore and obviously the jurisdiction referenced as required in the latter half of the sentence HAS to be political as opposed to physical because the physical jurisdiction is established as existing at birth! That said and accepted as fact one quickly realizes that the sentence itself would make no sense whatsoever if physical jurisdiction were required to be present TWICE! The bottom line being we do not claim nor do we own political jurisdiction over anyone except our own citizens and arguably some legal residents such as in the Wong Kim Ark case. Therefore, these so called anchor babies are not citizens and I would claim govt is well aware of this fact! A massive fraud by govt has been committed!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ray Noyb,

You argue that the original definition of a natural born citizen required only birth to two U.S. citizen parents and that it considered place of birth to be irrelevant. I disagree, for such an interpretation of the natural born citizen clause is precluded by the common law that defines the clause, Congress’s naturalization Acts, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent including but not limited to Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) (I have cited other U.S. Supreme Court cases in my article). This is not to say that birth in the United States is sufficient in order for one to be a natural born citizen, for the early naturalization Act of Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, and 1855) and Minor also expressly preclude such an interpretation. What this means is that a natural born citizen is born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Ray Noyb said...

Consider the 14th amendment jurisdiction requirement! The sentence says everyone born or naturalized HERE is a citizen subject to the jurisdiction thereof. 1st of all the 14th says nothing about natural born BUT that is not my point! Note that the sentence says born HERE. THOSE words establish the requirement that one must be physically here therefore the stated jurisdiction requirement that follows HAS TO REFERENCE POLITICAL JURISDICTION as opposed to physical jurisdiction because physical jurisdiction is basically already established as given and a requirement! Therefore quite simply, both physical and political jurisdiction must exist at birth to confer citizen status!

One must realize this and the fact that the 14th was not meant to confer natural born status nor does it confer any citizen status at all unless we own political jurisdiction over at least 1 parent. The fact is we do not own political jurisdiction over any illegal so these so called anchor babies that govt confers citizen status upon are not citizens at all!

We own political jurisdiction over our citizens and according to the SCOTUS we own it over some legal residents. That is it! We do not own it over illegals!

Ray Noyb said...

Mario! I argue only original intent based primarily on the 1790 act. My real interest is in proving the intent of the 14th! I say it obviously does not confer NB status but more importantly it does not confer citizen status simply for the sole reason that one is born here. I say that because careful reading of the sentence in question reveals it can be interpreted in only one way and that way is to concede that 2 types of jurisdiction are required to be present at birth to confer citizen status. Physical and political jurisdictions must both be satisfied for the sentence itself to make any sense!

Ray Noyb said...

Note too that I have read that Cruz was asked years ago for his definition of the term natural born in some minor vetting scenario in Texas. He reportedly said born to 2 citizens while here BUT I have to consider the info as rumor or worse because I have yet to be able to find confirmation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ray,

The Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.”

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court grappled not with the issue of whether Wong, born in the United States to two alien parents, was born in the United States, but rather with the issue of whether he was born subject to its jurisdiction. The Court held that he satisfied both necessary conditions of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus was constitutionally entitled to be a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth. The decision can be interpreted to mean that the Court required that for a child born in the United States to alien parents to be granted citizenship from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, the child’s parents at the time of the child’ birth had to be permanently domiciled and residing in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders. Wong Kim Ark only dealt with a scenario wherein the child’s parents are both either U.S. citizens or aliens. I do not believe that the Court would have accepted one or two temporary or illegal alien parents when it granted Wong U.S. citizenship as a product of his birth circumstances by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

l.tecolote said...

Extremely learned analysis at this site, which I greatly appreciate. General presidential eligibility qualifications to be met are the superior concern, and encompass the question of Ted Cruz's eligibility as it relates to the"Natural Born Citizen" sub-topic. However, that is not the only eligibility qualifier provided in the Constitution. Almost no one has noticed, remembered, or mentioned that the Constitution refers to both the president and vice president as "he". Even though federal law enthusiastically works to effect abolishment of gender references, Without a constitutional amendment, no female is eligible to assume the office of president or vice president. Therefore, H. Clinton is also ineligible.

Ray Noyb said...

Cruz is a citizen because he was born to 1 citizen parent BUT that does not make him what is called a natural born citizen.The problem is we have no clear cut easy to comprehend legal definition for the term natural born. As stated earlier above .the 1790 naturalization act is the best indicator we have as to original intended definition for the term. Most naysayers want to reference the English definition BUT their problem with that is the framers chose to consider us as CITIZENS and not SUBJECTS. I recommend studying the rights and etc of subjects vs citizens if you are actually interested. You will then understand why the framers chose to become citizens. Reference Vattels law vs Old English law also.

Http//www.teapartyorganizers.ning.com

Ray Noyb said...

One can be born a citizen but not be natural born. Such is the situation with Cruz.