• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

With a caucus full of POTUS candidates as McConnell admitted, Mitch is also headed to the far-right with these Senators, ensuring two more years of gridlock--as these Senators and Governors angle for the primary vote.

Cruz isn't even in the discussion, with Rubio gaining steam being pushed by FOX, the same FOX ignoring Paul. These two Senators are still running well behind Walker and Bush though, IMHO.

Fun to watch is Candidate roulette on Bret Baier's Friday Special Report, the one political hour I try to never miss .

This is going to be interesting indeed considering all the "natural-born citizen" flack President Obama received from the Right. I can see a rehash of all those Obama/natural-born citizen debate threads being quoted now!

To the OP, I find it interesting that the two attorney's glossed over one very crucial component of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which I have to assume is the 1700 law they're referring to since it remains the only federal Act dealing with U.S. citizenship that uses and, thus, defines the term "natural-born", towit: "...the right of citizenship did 'not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States'".

Of course, this little tidbit hardly matters today since our INA laws have changed over the centuries ultimately to cover both children born to the soil and those born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent be it the mother or the father. However, since Ted Cruz was born in Canada, the issue of his dual-citizenship likely would have remained an issue...that is until he renounced his Canadian citizenship sometime last year (I believe). Nonetheless, it's going to be interesting to see how those Republicans who beat liberals/defenders of Pres. Obama's natural-born status explain Ted Cruz' natural-born status when it's very clear that he was born abroad (albeit to a U.S. citizen mother). I guarantee you that any defense they use will likely be the same defense used to prove Pres. Obama's natural-born citizenship status and IMO his was much more definitive than Ted Cruz'.
 
Not quite the same; both McCain's parents were U.S. citizens. Only one of Cruz' - his mother - is/was (not sure if she's still alive). Of course, as I've said before, current INA law takes into account at least one parent born on U.S. soil to confer U.S. citizenship unto the child.
And where was he born again?
 
And where was he born again?

If you're referring to Ted Cruz, Canada.

If you're referring to Sen. McCain, Panama (Canal Zone which was not a U.S. territory despite the fact that McCain was born on a U.S. military installation).

I forget exactly how McCain's "natural-born" citizenship dilemma was ultimately resolved, but Cruz' may have been resolved by the fact that he:

1) renounced his Canadian citizenship; and,

2) his mother was a U.S. citizen at birth (which is permissible under current INA law).

The verdict may still be out. In any case, I go back to a few old questions I once asked when this natural-born -vs- citizen issue first came up w/Pres. Obama:

If there is a difference between a U.S. citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen, what benefits are conferred one over the other?

Is the only difference that being a natural-born citizen can hold the office of PUTUS and a citizen cannot?

And seeing that the term "natural-born" was only once a settled matter in a 1790 law that has long been repealed and replaced by other versions of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization law, does "natural-born" even still apply today?

And if not, should Art. 2 of the U.S. Constitution be amended?
 
Last edited:
Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president | Fox News

two former Justice Department lawyers have weighed in with a bipartisan verdict: Cruz, they say, is eligible to run for the White House. Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clemente, solicitor general in President George W. Bush’s administration, got out in front of the issue in a Harvard Law Review article. “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 wrote."

So....a couple of former gov't hacks have opined that Cruz is eligible?
This is very nice, but meaningless.
Until the top-notch birthers weigh in, Cruz' eligibility will remain a raging controversy.
I haven't heard from Orly Taitz, WND's Dr. Jerome Corsi or Sheriif Joe Arpaio as of yet.
Until these stellar legal minds give Cruz the OK, I'm not convinced.
In addition, Donald Trump's crack team of investigators may uncover some serious doubts about Cruz' alleged citizenship.
 
No they are not. They are not natural born Citizens.
Well....since they are currently citizens....and weren't required to go through the "naturalization process" to become citizens, I'm guessing they are "natural born citizens".
What is your definition of a "natural born citizen"?
 
No they are not. They are not natural born Citizens.

{shrug} I'll leave it to the lawyers. As a progressive, I have lots of reasons not to vote for Cruz. If the same conservatives that complained about Pres. Obama want to complain about Cruz, that's up to them. As far as I'm concerned, as someone who was born to a US citizen, he is eligible to run for president.
 
If you're referring to Ted Cruz, Canada.

If you're referring to Sen. McCain, Panama (Canal Zone which was not a U.S. territory despite the fact that McCain was born on a U.S. military installation).

I forget exactly how McCain's "natural-born" citizenship dilemma was ultimately resolved, but Cruz' may have been resolved by the fact that he:

1) renounced his Canadian citizenship; and,

2) his mother was a U.S. citizen at birth.

The verdict may still be out. In any case, I go back to a few old questions I once asked when this natural-born -vs- citizen issue first came up w/Pres. Obama:

If there is a difference between a U.S. citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen, what benefits are conferred one over the other?

Is the only difference that being a natural-born citizen can hold the office of PUTUS and a citizen cannot?

And seeing that the term "natural-born" was only once a settled matter in a 1790 law that has long been repealed and replaced by other versions of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization law, does "natural-born" even still apply today?

And if not, should Art. 2 of the U.S. Constitution be amended?
I had a feeling you might try the "who" angle.
Of course I was referring to Cruz.
I asked to make the point that he wasn't born on US soil.

McCain's dilemma was not resolved as the person suing had no standing. And the lawsuit showed he was born in a civilian hospital. Not a Military hospital.
But like I said that matters not one bit as a law was passed which shows he was not even a citizen until passage. So he is a Citizen by statute. Not naturally born.

Your #1 is irrelevant. He was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen at birth and owed allegiance to Canada at birth. That is not a natural born citizen of the US.

The 1790 language was changed for a reason, and it hasn't been in effect since it was superseded 5 years later. As such the 1790 legislation is irrelevant as it was replaced and they were not born under it.

Your questions?
Who did you ask this question of, and what was the answer?

The answers should be an obvious "of course" as they are different distinctions. The founders intentionally made the distinction for a purpose.
Obviously they knew what that distinction was.
And that is more than evident from Vattel’s Law of Nations which our founders relied on, that those born of Citizens on a Country's soil makes one a natural born citizen.
Which is further enforced by the letter to Washington from John Jay suggesting that the distinction be made for the Commander in Chief, as the natural state of being a natural born citizen does not come with allegiances to a foreign country.
 
As far as I'm concerned, as someone who was born to a US citizen, he is eligible to run for president.
And that is what is wrong with your position.
 
Well....since they are currently citizens....and weren't required to go through the "naturalization process" to become citizens, I'm guessing they are "natural born citizens".
You guess wrong.
The Courts are prohibited from even interpreting it that way because the Constitution makes the distinction, so there must be a difference.


What is your definition of a "natural born citizen"?
The same information that the founders relied on. Born to citizens on US soil and owing no foreign allegiances.
 
I had a feeling you might try the "who" angle.
Of course I was referring to Cruz.
I asked to make the point that he wasn't born on US soil.

McCain's dilemma was not resolved as the person suing had no standing. And the lawsuit showed he was born in a civilian hospital. Not a Military hospital.
But like I said that matters not one bit as a law was passed which shows he was not even a citizen until passage. So he is a Citizen by statute. Not naturally born.

Your #1 is irrelevant. He was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen at birth and owed allegiance to Canada at birth. That is not a natural born citizen of the US.

The 1790 language was changed for a reason, and it hasn't been in effect since it was superseded 5 years later. As such the 1790 legislation is irrelevant as it was replaced and they were not born under it.

Your questions?
Who did you ask this question of, and what was the answer?

The answers should be an obvious "of course" as they are different distinctions. The founders intentionally made the distinction for a purpose.
Obviously they knew what that distinction was.
And that is more than evident from Vattel’s Law of Nations which our founders relied on, that those born of Citizens on a Country's soil makes one a natural born citizen.
Which is further enforced by the letter to Washington from John Jay suggesting that the distinction be made for the Commander in Chief, as the natural state of being a natural born citizen does not come with allegiances to a foreign country.

Sounds as if you got alittle huffy with me. No need; I see this situation in much the same way as yourself. However, I would content that until the "natural-born citizen" equation truly becomes settled law, the need for people to jump through legal hoops will continue.

You've pointed out one obvious constant - that the citizenship equation has continued to change over time. However, one thing I believe Congress has tried to hold true to is the distinct prerequisite the the POTUS must be a "natural-born citizen," someone born to the soil of the United States of America to become President. Hence, the reason I asked my questions (to the forum) years ago (you may have to search the forum archives for it), specifically, is there a difference between a "natural-born citizen" and a "citizen" of these United States.

The answer clearly is a resounding yes, but determining who such individuals are can be somewhat convoluted as the questions surrounding Obama/McCain/Cruz natural-born/citizen birth rights have clearly illustrated.

(BTW, I don't recall ever getting a straight answer to my question(s).)
 
Last edited:
So what is he then?

If you judge him simply by the color of his skin, then Dr. King's words are lost on you.
To know what he is you would have to look at his life. Grew up with well off white grandparents who paid for him to attend a lily white private school. Never suffered or went without anything he wanted. Had everything handed to him on a silver platter. Like a Nobel peace prize. Descended from slave traders and slave owners, but not slaves. Which make his "we are the slaves that built the white house" comment even more laughable. He'll exploit anyone that is willing to follow him due to the fact that he kind of looks like them.
So, by what standard does one judge him as being "black"? It's certainly not the content of his character.
If it weren't for the amount of melanin in his skin and the letter after his name, many on the left would brand him a privileged white boy.
 
If Rafael Cruz runs what should even be more fun is his father was a revolutionary who fought along side Fidel Castro during the Cuban revolution. Watching the TP people spin that will be comedy gold.

Do you by chance have any back up for that assertion? I'd be pleased to read it.
 
Sounds as if you got alittle huffy with me. No need; I see this situation in much the same way as yourself. However, I would content that until the "natural-born citizen" equation truly becomes settled law, the need for people to jump through legal hoops will continue. You've pointed out one obvious constant - that the citizenship equation has continued to change over time. However, one thing I believe Congress has tried to hold true to is the distinct prerequisite the the POTUS must be a "natural-born citizen," someone born to the soil of the United States of America to become President. Hence, the reason I asked my questions (to the forum) years ago (you may have to search the forum archives for it), specifically, is there a difference between a "natural-born citizen" and a "citizen" of these United States.

The answer clearly is a resounding yes, but determining who such individuals are can be somewhat convoluted as the questions surrounding Obama/McCain/Cruz natural-born/citizen birth rights have clearly illustrated.

(BTW, I don't recall every getting a straight answer to my question(s).)
Huffy? :doh That would be a product of your own thoughts.
But I do see you are continuing to misstate the positions. And no, it hasn't continued to change over time. It has always meant the same thing. It was wrongly changed one time and later corrected.
Congress really hasn't done anything either. And the requirement does not just have to do with the soil. So there is no holding true to the requirement if it is not being followed.


The distinction is pretty clear as to who is and isn't.
The only problem is those who want to support their candidate, party, and their ill-informed opinion arguing the opposite.

Your postings?
I do not need to search the forum for your posts if you can not be bothered to provide them.

The only thing we seem to agree with is what I originally stated.
The Supreme Court has not settled this issue.
 
The same information that the founders relied on.

What info are you talking about?

Born to citizens on US soil and owing no foreign allegiances.

Article 2 Section 1 does reference "natural born citizen" as a presidential requirement.
The precise definition of "natural born citizen" is not mentioned though.
I guess the founders wanted future generations to decide that issue.
 
Do you by chance have any back up for that assertion? I'd be pleased to read it.

It's all over the net, just google it.

Cruz's father, who was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba,[19][20] as Robert T. Garrett of the Dallas Morning News has described, "suffered beatings and imprisonment for protesting the oppressive regime"[19][24] of dictator Fulgencio Batista. He fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution[25][26] when he was 14 years old, but "didn't know Castro was a Communist.

Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Meh. Not a big deal.

I don't think it's a big deal either. I just want to sit back and enjoy comedy as the TP and conservatives blast Cruz because of his father. For 6 tears because of the 'sins of Obama's father' of being Muslim they called Obama all sorts of vicious names and accusations. Sins of the father must then apply to Cruz's communist father too. We all know the TP and conservatives aren't hypocritical so they'll treat Cruz the same. ;)
 
I don't think it's a big deal either. I just want to sit back and enjoy comedy as the TP and conservatives blast Cruz because of his father. For 6 tears because of the 'sins of Obama's father' of being Muslim they called Obama all sorts of vicious names and accusations. Sins of the father must then apply to Cruz's communist father too. We all know the TP and conservatives aren't hypocritical so they'll treat Cruz the same. ;)

Oh, I'm sure they will lol
 
What info are you talking about?

...

Article 2 Section 1 does reference "natural born citizen" as a presidential requirement.
The precise definition of "natural born citizen" is not mentioned though.
I guess the founders wanted future generations to decide that issue.

I believe Excon is referring to "jurisdiction"...persons born on U.S. soil or U.S. territory. Some folks imply that such birth must include two U.S. citizen parents, but not even the Naturalization Act of 1790 required such as even a free White Man who lived in the U.S. for (initially) a minimum of 2 years (later increasing to as much as 14 years) could bear a child abroad and said child would be deemed "natural-born". Moreover, recent U.S. District/Appeals Court rulings have made it clear that one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to confer U.S. citizenship and, thus, natural-born status unto the child.


Huffy? :doh That would be a product of your own thoughts.
But I do see you are continuing to misstate the positions. And no, it hasn't continued to change over time. It has always meant the same thing. It was wrongly changed one time and later corrected.
Congress really hasn't done anything either. And the requirement does not just have to do with the soil. So there is no holding true to the requirement if it is not being followed.


The distinction is pretty clear as to who is and isn't.
The only problem is those who want to support their candidate, party, and their ill-informed opinion arguing the opposite.

Your postings?
I do not need to search the forum for your posts if you can not be bothered to provide them.

The only thing we seem to agree with is what I originally stated.
The Supreme Court has not settled this issue.

Are you always so difficult even when folks agree with you even a little bit? Lighten up!

I agree with you that neither Ted Cruz nor John McCain meet the definition of natural-born at birth as neither were born on U.S. soil/territory. I would also content that if U.S. District/Appeals Courts hadn't upheld natural-born citizen status as someone born to the soil by at least one U.S. citizen parent, we'd still be heavily debating Pres. Obama's NBC status to date. That said, like you I'd much rather the matter finally be settled by the Supreme Court as the issue will invariably rear its ugly head again....and again...and again as time passes until true clarity is brought to the situation.

As for searching for my prior posting to this forum on the subject matter at hand, I wasn't asking you to. It was merely a point of reference should your curiosity (or anyone else's for that matter) pursued you to so investigate. Frankly, I'd much rather leave this issue be as there's no reason to :beatdeadhorse all over again. Besides, I do hate re-opening old wounds...gives me such a headache.
 
Last edited:
What info are you talking about?
Obviously you are not paying attention to the other information provided in this thread. :doh

Article 2 Section 1 does reference "natural born citizen" as a presidential requirement.
The precise definition of "natural born citizen" is not mentioned though.
I guess the founders wanted future generations to decide that issue.
No.
They knew what it meant.
Just as you know what the word summer means right now.
Just as you know what smart-phone means right now.
If those words/wording somehow become unused those in the future can look back at the historical record and determine what they meant.

Just as those in the future could, we also know what was meant from the historical record of the time.

As I previously stated.
The answers should be an obvious "of course" as they are different distinctions. The founders intentionally made the distinction for a purpose.
Obviously they knew what that distinction was.
And that is more than evident from Vattel’s Law of Nations which our founders relied on, that those born of Citizens on a Country's soil makes one a natural born citizen.
Which is further enforced by the letter to Washington from John Jay suggesting that the distinction be made for the Commander in Chief, as the natural state of being a natural born citizen does not come with allegiances to a foreign country.


But I am sure you have no idea what I am speaking about whereas the other person I was speaking to did.
So with that understanding ...

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

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.[SUP][15][/SUP]

While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.[SUP][16][/SUP]

Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continued below.
 
As to Vattel.

Benjamin Franklin shared Jefferson’s admiration for Vattel. In 1775, Franklin wrote in a letter:

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.

Next, consider the irrefutable fact that Vattel’s interpretations of the law of nature were cited more frequently than any other writer’s on international law in cases heard in the courts of the early United States, and the Law of Nations was the primary textbook on the subject in use in American universities.

For all the foregoing reasons we are right to turn to the Swss-born Vattel’s Law of Nations for our understanding of the definition of “natural born citizen” just as our Founding Fathers did.

To that end, here are a few relevant selections from Vattel’s Law of Nations regarding the concept of “natural born citizen”:


§ 212: “Natural born citizens are those born in a country to parents who are also citizens of that country. Particularly, if the father of the person is not a citizen then the child is not a citizen either. Children cannot inherit from parents rights not enjoyed by them.”

§ 213: “While those individuals described above may be permitted to remain in the country of their birth, they are not naturally endowed with the rights of citizens.”

§ 214: “A country may allow a person born in a country to foreign parents the status of citizenship, this is called naturalization. That is a function of law, not of birthright.”

§§ 215, 216 & 217: “Children born overseas to parents who are foreigners in that country do not become natural born citizens of that country, rather they are citizens of the country to which their parents owe allegiance.”
Argument as provided in reference to Rubio and Jindal not being eligible.


But you can you can find Vattel's work here for yourself.
Emmerich de Vattel: The Law of Nations
 
but not even the Naturalization Act of 1790 required
The 1790 act is not in effect.
It is not applicable.

Congress in their wisdom changed the wording.
There is a reason for that.


Are you always so difficult even when folks agree with you even a little bit? Lighten up!
I am not being difficult. So maybe you should follow your own advice and lighten up. :shrug:


I would also content that if U.S. District/Appeals Courts hadn't upheld natural-born citizen status as someone born to the soil by at least one U.S. citizen parent, we'd still be heavily debating Pres. Obama's NBC status to date.
That isn't what happened.
Better yet; Proof?

When a plaintiff has no standing to challenge, the court can not make any ruling on the issue presented.


As for searching for my prior posting to this forum on the subject matter at hand, I wasn't asking you to. It was merely a point of reference should your curiosity (or anyone else's for that matter) pursued you to so investigate. Frankly, I'd much rather leave this issue be as there's no reason to :beatdeadhorse all over again. Besides, I do hate re-opening old wounds...gives me such a headache.
Well I would like to see this question you supposedly asked. Verify it is as you stated and see if there was a reply to it.
Suggesting I look for it when I have no idea of what the search criteria (key words, what was specifically asked, etc...) would be for a post "years old", is really kind of absurd.
As for the rest ... Old wounds?
For me trying to explain the nuances in the Constitution, Law, Case Law, versus that of just dicta, gives me a headache.
As well has having to continually point out that 1790 Act is no longer in effect and was replaced by the Act of 1795 which changed the wording.
The changed wording goes more to intent than the actual wording of the 1790 Act.

Beating a dead-horse?
Well if they are considering running. the issue really isn't dead, is it?
 
Back
Top Bottom