IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN by John Charlton (Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the
HuffPo is obviously not the best source of policy wisdom, but it’s a great source for intelligence about what the left is up to, and they are up to exactly what I have predicted since my fellow tea party activists leapt over the cliff like lemmings, subject to Cruz control:
Scholars Agree that Ted Cruz is Not Constitutionally Eligible
But what if a candidate misrepresents his basic eligibility for ballot access. Is there legal remedy for that fraud? Again, Ted Cruz provides best evidence.Democrat and Republican partisans alike have agreed that the Canadian-born Cruz is not a “natural born” American citizen as textually required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, Mr. Cruz held onto his resulting Canadian citizenship from the time of his birth until May 2014.Not eligible for the presidency, the vice-presidency is also verboten. If Ted Cruz is chosen for the GOP ticket — “playing top or bottom” — the debate over his constitutional ineligibility will go nuclear. House Democrat Alan Grayson pledges to initiate lawsuits: “I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination.”And many nonpartisan legal scholars agree. Ted Cruz’s Harvard Law teacher Laurence Tribe first raised the concern. On Slate, University of Chicago Law Professor Eric Posner put the case directly:Because Cruz was not “natural born”—not born in the United States—he is ineligible for the presidency…. To naturalize … is to confer citizenship status but not to somehow convert him to having been born in America; similarly, to confer citizenship by statute to someone born abroad to an American parent is not the same thing as retroactively making that person born in this country—making him natural born—which would be impossible.Other top academics concur. Legal historian Mary Brigid McManamon’s presents the most comprehensive analysis. Harvard Law Professor Einer R. Elhauge’s recent work, taking the form of a 2016 amicus brief, proves beyond doubt that Mr. Cruz is not eligible — for the presidency or vice-presidency.
This is how the SCOTUS cases approach the issue–but I believe a more correct reading of Vattel and the correct approach under natural law is to consider the child to be NBC of the same country as the father, so no naturalization should be required here. (Ted Cruz, on the other hand, had no US father.)
Mar. 21, 2016) — Last week, The Post & Email was contacted by a reader who informed us that he or she was born abroad to U.S.-citizen parents, both of whom were “natural born Citizens.” At the time of the child’s birth, his or her father was serving in the U.S. Army.When the reader contacted us, he or she said:I was born overseas while my father was in the Army. Both my parents are natural born. I am not. When I joined the military in 1974 I had to apply for a Naturalization Certificate. I would have had to have done so a year later anyway when I would have turned 18 if the law requiring me to do so had not been repealed that year. I had to provide my birth certificate and my form FS-240 Report of Birth. I am a Naturalized citizen and at best that is all Ted Cruz is.
Generally, under Canada’s Citizenship Act of 1947, those born in Canada were automatically citizens at birth unless their parent was a foreign diplomat. So, Ted Cruz, the lawyer who graduated from Harvard Law School and who successfully argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, who got a passport in 1986 so that he could travel to Great Britain for a high school class trip, who is a U.S. Senator, who knew that one born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction (which includes birth to alien parents) is a citizen of the United States, who knew that one who is born in the United States (the place of his birth) who leaves the U.S. even one minute after his birth is still a U.S. citizen, who knew that in the United States one can get a U.S. passport by presenting a U.S. birth certificate showing that one was born in the United States (the place of his birth), who knew that his father was born in Cuba and that his place of birth made him a Cuban citizen, who knew that his mother was born in the U.S. and that her place of birth made her a U.S. citizen, and who knew that he himself was born in Canada (the place of is birth) to parents neither of whom were foreign diplomats, did not know that his being born in Canada made him a Canadian citizen? Now really?
With Donald Trump gaining steam to be the Republican presidential nominee, many are wondering who might be his choice for vice president.
Now, a brand-new national poll from Morning Consult has been released, and the name at the top of the list to be Trump’s running mate among Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters is retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson.
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.