I’m not qualified to second guess the considered judgment of constitutional scholars about the original meaning of the term “natural born citizen.” I think it may well be the case that anyone who was not born in the United States of America cannot be considered eligible to serve as president of the United States. I also think it’s possible that they can be.
Either way, there’s a distinction to be made between people like John McCain and my brother, Phil, who were born abroad in military installations while their fathers were serving in the military, and Ted Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada because that’s where his parents were voluntarily living at the time.
It’s my strong suspicion that the Founding Fathers would not have wanted to punish the children of citizens who they had sent to serve abroad. But they would not have been willing to make an exception for citizens who were living in another country for their own reasons.
I can imagine some tricky cases, like a mother who was spending a summer in Europe rather than actually relocating there. But the basic intent of the constitutional provision seems clear to me. If you are born a Canadian, you can’t become president.
A separate question is whether anyone is really interested in enforcing this provision in a case like Ted Cruz’s.
For me, I have no such interest. His mother was a citizen. As far as I am concerned, that’s good enough. I don’t like Ted Cruz but I don’t think he’ll sell us out to Ottawa.
If some people want to be sticklers, I think they have that right. I don’t feel like being a stickler.
You know, there’s another provision of the Constitution that (sort of) says that the president and vice-president cannot come from the same state. I think it’s an outdated provision and we shouldn’t care about it. But it should have been discussed more when George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate. They were both residents of Texas at the time, and I don’t think Dick Cheney maintaining a second residence in Wyoming should have allowed him to pretend that he didn’t live in Texas. As it turned out, Cheney registered to vote at his second residence which was actually critical because the Electors from Texas were prohibited from casting their votes for more than one Texan. Because the Electoral College vote was so close (271-266), if Cheney hadn’t been considered a citizen of Wyoming, Bush could been elected but Cheney could not have been.
I thought Cheney posing as Wyoming citizen was a fraud. But, I actually didn’t care too much about it. I didn’t see any real reason why we should still care if the president and vice-president come from the same state.
Likewise, I don’t care that Cruz was born in Calgary. But some people will care. And I will laugh my ass off if the Republicans discover that after falsely accusing the current president of being born in another country they wind up having a problem electing a president because he actually was born in another country.
It will be amusing to see them tap dancing around this birther issue. As usual, the Republicans will bluster and try to shrug off the idea that Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen, but they won’t work as hard as they did trying to prove Obama wasn’t one. Because no one will make as big a stink about it on the Democratic side.
If there were a law suit about Cruz’s eligibility, would his lawyers point out that the first seven presidents (Washington down to Andrew Jackson) were not born in the United States, because there was no United States when they were born? Martin Van Burien was the first to be born after 1776.
As applied at the time, even thought the first 7 Presidents were not born in the US, since the US did not exist when they were born, they were born in the territories (colonies) that would become the US. Someone born outside those territories would not have been allowed to be President.
The Constitution actually specifically addresses this point in Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5:
You only needed to be a mere citizen and not a natural born citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
I don’t give a hoot in hell about the “natural born citizens”. For my $$ naturalized citizens are better citizens because we KNOW they want to be citizens of THIS country. As opposed to those citizens who apparently have conditional love that threatens treason, sedition and secession when they don’t get their way. But, for the sake of argument, an Originalist interpretation would probably mean:
You have to have been physically born in an American controlled territory irrespective of the nationality or citizenship of your parents (14th amendment).
OR
Both Parents were American citizens at the time of your birth and you have renounced, in writing, any claim to birth citizenship of a foreign power.
It’s the Constitution. Like the requirement that both POTUS and Veep can’t be from the same state. Or no third term. Each probably fulfilled a political need or prejudice at the time. No Third term was to prevent another Roosevelt. Like all term limits, I oppose it. But it’s the Constitution.
I believe Cruz is an American Citizen.
I do not believe that he is a ‘natural born’ citizen.
There is a difference.
I want the answer to the question.
Like you, I think that Military Installations are considered like American Embassies – America proper.
But, I do want the answer to the question.
I feel the same way. I’d really like to have this clearly defined for once and for all.
I’m not a huge fan of Obama, but, equally, I’m not out for revenge. But given the huge – and expensive (in terms of waste of time and money court cases, at least) – outcry over Obama’s purported lack of true citizenship/natural born citizen bs, I’d really like to have a clear definition and answer. I think it would be helpful for all concerned going forward. A litmus test that can be used now and in the future.
I have always questioned Cruz’s status to run for POTUS given where he was born.
IF we, as citizens, wish to change the constitution or other laws to make it legit for people like Cruz to run, then that should be accomplished via the legal means to do so.
I suspect that Cruz is not really eligible to run, and if not, it means something to me – that he should not be allowed to do so. And I would certainly challenge the legitimacy of his presidency should he win (and no, not because he’s Cruz).
Make the necessary changes to the laws or constitution (depending on which it should be) to enable people with similar backgrounds to Cruz to run. Otherwise, forget it.
I don’t see it as a “nothing” issue. That’s just me, but I think it’s important to comply with whatever is the true definition of the laws and/or US constitution. Let’s have it clearly stated and act accordingly.
Why would your being or not being a fan of Obama matter?
He was born in Hawaii. Last time I looked, it was clearly American territory.
I stated that poorly. I was clumsily attempting to indicate that my opposition to Cruz getting a “free pass” to run for POTUS – without further investigation about the legality of it – is not based on my wanting revenge (or whatever) for the GOP base constantly (to this day) claiming that Obama is not a citizen.
I’m not a huge fan of Obama, but it doesn’t matter. However, I’ve never felt in any way that Obama is not a citizen or not eligible to be President. I think Obama won fair and square and had every legal right to run and win. Obama’s citizenship status and eligibility to run for POTUS should have never been an issue to begin with.
With Cruz, I’m not so sure, but it has nothing to do with his party affiliation. I’d like it be clarified. If Cruz is eligible to run, then I’m fine with that.
So, if Lieberman was Bush’s Veep, would we have been able to tell the difference?
Frankly, it’s a stupid rule that denies immigrants a chance to run. They likely won’t win as an immigrant, but they should have the chance.
Aside from some schadenfreude, this is a big nothing burger for me.
If it’s a “stupid rule” or law, fine. But then the law and/or constitution should be changed. I think it’s illegal to break the law, and I think the rule of law should be applied in all cases. Ignoring it in this instance sets a very bad precedent in my opinion.
That said, as I indicated above, I think we need a clear definition of what is legal and what isn’t. JMHO, of course.
It’s stupid to you and a lot of people. But anyone who thinks about it seriously for even a minute knows that they don’t actually want to live in a world where “It’s a stupid rule/law/regulation.” is justification to not obey the rule/law/regulation.
You don’t have to like a law. You just have to obey it until you can go through the process to get it changed.
Really, I can’t believe we’re even wasting bandwidth on the issue of Cruz’s eligibility when we should be discussing serious major issues like, y’know, blowjobs.
I don’t care where Cruz was born. I do care about the hypocrisy involved. But the Dems should not bring it up, or Republicans will circle the wagons in defense. We should just shut up, let the GOP turn on its own like they always do, and hope it tears itself apart arguing the point.
Agreed.
SOMEONE is going to sue to keep Cruz off a primary/general ballot. It should get fast tracked to the Supremes and we can get the damn thing resolved.
Bush President, Lieberman Vice President. Interesting possibility but IMHO wouldn’t have made a lot of difference.
But now for some really good news:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/quinnipiac-january-poll-dems-iowa
Sanders —– http://www.cafepress.com/+fuck-this-shit+bumper-stickers
Fucking good site. I’m going to have to get one or two but now the question is which one.
I kind of like this one http://www.cafepress.com/mf/102504535/democratic-socialist_bumper-sticker?productId=1678561564
You’re right, a contribution to Bernie Sanders is the only option. He seems to be getting his groove, you might say. Anyway The Hillary seems to be a bit put out by the hoi polloi. I see that the FB I is investigating possible conflict of interest issues when she was SoS regarding the Clinton Foundation: can you image what we’ll be in for if this gets off the ground?
On second thought I think I would rather make another contribution to Bernie or maybe a contribution to Tim Canova.
“On Thursday, Florida law professor and progressive activist Tim Canova announced he is running for Congress in FL-23, currently occupied by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/debbie-has-primary-youre-invited
Be sure to post a link for contributions.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/blueamerica16?refcode=BlueAmerica&recurring=10&ta
ndembox=show
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/timcanova2016 The other seems more generic, but good also.
Struck my blow against top down tyranny. Just might make it monthly, like I am to Bernie.
Q-polls are usually very good, but as I recall, the polls showed Dean winning Iowa going into the caucuses.
dean was losing in the polls 2 weeks before iowa (to clarify the internals showed dean losing 2 weeks before iowa but the national and state polls showed dean losing about 7-5 days before iowa – and well before the dean scream). trippi sent out an email to all ops telling us not to get upset if we lost iowa and thats when we knew.
○ Glass Houses – update by Marie3 on Friday Jan. 8th, 2016
Mr. Cruz doesn’t stop with denying actual “settled law,” but also seems to invent “settled law” (that just happens to benefit him).
There’s no question that the child of an American citizen is eligible to become President. That ship sailed with Panamanian-born John McCain ran. Of course, as many here, I’m greatly amused to watch the Republicans try to tapdance around their hypocrisy.
Eh? I think that McCain’s situation is different from Cruz. Panama was, at that time, a US territory (I think), which confers a different status on McCain for running legitimately for POTUS. Cruz, otoh, was definitely born in a foreign country.
OTOH, I don’t really care all that much either. OTOH, I do feel strongly that the actual constitutional law needs to be clearly defined so that we can more forward on solid ground.
Yes, it was in the Canal Zone, a US territoty at the time and Mccain was born in a Naval Hospital to boot. Would be say he was not a native citizen if he was born in the Air Force Hospital in Ramstein Germany? I’m no lawyer, obviously, but I beleive embassies, armed forces bases and ships at sea have special status.
It’s ludicrous that a woman can fly to Seattle in her ninth month of pregnancy and her child is a native born citizen but the child of two American citizens in a foreign located military base, born while on the business of the United States is not.
the situation with McCain was trickier than that, because the law at the time of his birth was a leftover from an earlier time, before the US had lots of military bases around the world.
So the law provided for citizenship for kids born “in the US, or it’s territories, or foreign nations”…but the CZ was something different…leased from Panama? US ‘possession’?
The law was fixed, and made retroactive, a few years later, but technically McCain was not a citizen “at birth”.
Well, I won’t dispute you although I was always taught in school that the Canal zone was a US territory as was Alaska and Hawaii until later. I remember the flag changing twice.
Perhaps the law was not so much changed as “clarified”?
Hey, Voice
So if a pregnant woman receiving humanitarian care at a military station gives birth, the child gets birthright citizenship?
Interesting!
I’m pretty sure that depends on the individual treaty that establishes the pseudo-American Territory in question. A lot of it goes back to the 14th Amendment.
Amendment 14 Section 1:
Various treaties establishing Embassies, Consulates, Economic Zones, Military Bases, etc. provide that for the purposes of citizenship and birth that Non-US Citizens are not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That means no US citizenship just for being born in places not directly owned by the US unless a treaty establishes that foreign citizens are subject to the laws of the US while there.
Maybe selling out to Ottawa isn’t such a bad idea – especially since Justin took over the reins.
No! Screw him! If there’s an argument to be made that he’s ineligible, then make it! Make them all suffer!
After eight years of this “birther” bullshit? Come on! Where is this spirit of temperance coming from?
These are awful, nasty, ignorant, venal, hateful people (and Cruz is one of the worst of the bunch). There is no reason not to absolutely see this through.
” I didn’t see any real reason why we should still care if the president and vice-president come from the same state.”
I do wish you and more people had stopped to think the state in question was TEXAS. That in itself should have been the flamethrower to scream bloody murder about the fraud before the campaign and fraudulent election.
Think how different recent history could have been! There is no reason to fight for the meaning of the words in the Constitution. (think: “well-regulated militia”)
“I didn’t see any real reason why we should still care if the president and vice-president come from the same state.”
It was a relic of a much earlier time. Like the electoral college.
Oh, those Founders messed up with the 12th Amendment, though. They forgot to put in a ‘death penalty’ provision. Just THINK of all the trouble that could have been avoided…
Did you accidentally reply to the wrong comment?
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must link to Wonkette:
http://wonkette.com/597772/republicans-lining-up-to-punch-foreigner-ted-cruz-right-in-his-poutine-cu
rds
The comparison isn’t to McCain but to Romney Sr. Because he dropped out the issue there never had to be settled. This court would be a very bad one to settle it, too. (Think Bush v Gore). If it’s going to become settled, then it should be settled at the Constitutional level and be an amendment. IMHO.
I don’t think the constitution prohibits presidential and vice presidential candidate from coming from the same state. They just can’t both get that state’s electoral votes. One might lose as a result, but both could run, and both might win.
Somewhat off-topic, but what’s our current consensus on how badly Cruz would do in the general?
Another question: if something went horribly wrong and the GOP candidate somehow won the general, I’m trying to decide whether Rubio, Cruz or Trump would do more damage. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but if I had to have one of those three, I’d take Trump. Rubio and Cruz are THAT bad.
That’s funny you wrote this, as the same thought occurred to me earlier tonight as well. I think you are right.
RAFAEL is an American Citizen.
THAT is not in question.
He, IS NOT
a ‘ natural born citizen’ of this country.
He was not born on an American Military base abroad.
He was not born in an American Embassy abroad.
He was born in another country.
Even had citizenship in that country.
Let’s take it to the Supreme Court.
what about Cruz’s mother being eligible to vote in Canada, i.e. she chose to live in another country and become a voter there? not the same as being born in a US naval hospital in the Canal Zone
Have to allow for the possibility that the subject Canadian voter roll could be in error.
could be an error of course, but that’s too bad b/c it’s documentary evidence
My understanding that no documentary proof that she was an eligible voter was required when Mrs. Cruz would have been queried by a survey worker. So, it’s not strong evidence.
you misunderstand what I mean by documentary proof. the worker who wrote down Mrs C’s name on a list of eligible voters created a document.
perhaps there are errors in that document; unlikely because of the process, but could be. but it’s a document listing her as an eligible voter.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ted-cruz-mother-canadian-voter-list
it requires more than C’s campaign director’s say so to contradict this document.
I understood what you said. You didn’t allow for the possibility that Mrs. Cruz lied to the survey worker. Or the survey worker recorded “yes” when told “no.” Or one or both of them became confused and it was Mr. Cruz and not Mrs. Cruz that should have been recorded as eligible to vote.
yes, I understand that. all those things are possible but it doesn’t matter. there’s a document that says what it says and the procedure was pretty careful, not foolproof, but they weren’t just recording info at random. It’s like old census. X’s great great grandfather on the census states he was born in Montreal; so what if family lore says he was born in Germany – burden of proof is to show he was born in Germany since documentary evidence states Montreal. not such a good example because we know the old census reports are full of errors, evidently these Canadian voter reg people in the 70’s were more careful.
I prefer to be cautious and careful as facts/documents are collected instead of running with whatever conforms to my wishes or interpretations.
I’m not suggesting that the Canadian voter record can be dismissed — or breezily dismissed or ignored as the Cruz campaign has attempted. Absent any relevant documentation that refutes Mrs. Cruz as an eligible Canadian voter at that time, there is only one interpretation, she became a Canadian citizen. IMHO he has been acting like he has something, or perhaps several things, to hide wrt this matter.
why didnt she register teddys birth with the embassy? when did he get a social security number?
Consulate. The Cruz campaign suggests that it was an oversight on the part of his mother or she was unaware of the law and assumed that her son was automatically a US citizen. And technically, it can be done years after a birth and US citizen birthright can be obtained at the later date. But does such a delay entitle one to also be “natural born,” particularly if he/she was not a stateless person in the interim but a citizen of another country? Unknown.
In Cruz’s case, the intent of his mother is critical. Her son was born as a Canadian citizen. If before or after Ted’s birth she sought and obtained Canadian citizenship for herself, pretty freaking difficult to argue that she hadn’t intended for the whole family to be Canadian.
yes, the Cruz campaign, that’s so admissible in court
Of course not. Unless you meant the “court of public opinion” which is barely where we are on this issue at this time. And seems not to be of interest to Democrats. OTOH, if one has documented proof that Mrs. Cruz was a Canadian citizen would it be better to release it now or when he has secured the GOP nomination?
(Wonder where the NYTimes got a hold of the undisclosed GS and Citi loans for Cruz’s Senate race?)
if Cruz is the nominee, or close, eventually it will go to court. that was what my first comment was about, that there’s documentary evidence she was a Canadian citizen. he may lose in the court of public opinion before then.
There are two thoughts in the linked article that are new to me. The first is that I’d always thought of “natural born citizen” being a citizen at birth per the laws of the time, versus naturalized, which is a someone later made a citizen. What the author suggests is that natural born must be within the boundaries of the nation. So what about people who were born elsewhere but were citizens at birth? The author treats those people as automatically naturalized at birth, but still naturalize and not natural born. It’s a critical distinction. I don’t know enough to know whether writings in effect in 1787 support this interpretation – and only this interpretation – as the author suggests. But if they do it makes sense.
The second new idea involves the question of would be what are the boundaries of a nation for natural born purposes. Certainly an argument could be made for territories not yet recognized as states, and for official foreign posts such as embassies or military bases. Yet, the author asserts that the point of the natural born requirement is that this is necessary for forming loyalty to the country. If that is the reasoning behind the requirement, it might be worth asking which territories and foreign posts make sense. Would someone born in Guam or Puerto Rico or American Samoa fit the definition of natural born? What about someone born at a consolate who didn’t actually enter the US until being an adult?
Might be helpful to recognize that naturalization existed before the US. It was administered autonomously within each of the colonies and that wasn’t changed when they became states. Thus, once one became a citizen of the Virginia colony, he/she was also a British citizen. A citizen of the State of Virginia was also a citizen of the USA. Upon ratification of the Constitution, all citizens of the colonies were grandfathered in as citizens of the USA.
Seems to me that they set an “always American” bar for the POTUS. They kept it simple with “natural born” — implying jus soli in any of the former thirteen colonies. (Doubt they intended to exclude the children of say, John and Abigail Adams if one had happened to be born abroad.) Yet, at the federal level jus soli wasn’t codified in law until 1866. Interesting that until 1964 all of the major party candidates for POTUS had been born in one of the thirteen colonies or a US state.
Thanks for this, but I’m questioning the last sentence as 7 Presidents were born in Ohio, and all of them were President long before 1964.
http://www.ohiostatehouse.org/visit/school-tours/ohio-presidents
This became a minor issue – and still is a big issue on conspiracy sites – because Congress didn’t actually complete the paperwork to make Ohio a state until 1953:
http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/The-admission-of-Ohio-as-a-state/
Actually, there is some debate as to whether that 1953 act was actually needed, but that was all the conspiracy theorists needed to argue that any acts signed by a President from Ohio weren’t valid, nor were any Constitutional Amendments that relied on Ohio for passage (notably the 16th – income tax). Which is the only reason I remembered that 7 Presidents were born in Ohio.
Overwhelming public acceptance, particularly if the acceptance is very long-standing, over-rides any minor technical omissions, shortcomings, etc.
Sometimes Congress does things to shut up the technical obsessives and crazies regardless of the legal necessity.
The Senate passing a resolution that “John McCain is a natural born citizen” wasn’t needed and didn’t carry any legal weight. It was just their opinion and it did shut up the crazies.
If one of your parents is am American citizen, then I think the kid should also be an American citizen, as long as the parents file the papers. Regardless of where they are born, and why they were born where.
Of course, I still laugh that Cruz has to defend from his right from an original birther now running as a candidate. Especially because Cruz is such a douchecanoe, though.