Tony Quinn, a well-known California political consultant and commentator on politics, here argues that Ted Cruz does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be President.
Quinn is wrong when he says Cruz is the first person to run for President who is not a natural-born citizen. Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua and when he ran for President in 2004 and 2008, was not a citizen. Thanks to AroundtheCapitol for the link.
McCain III was born at Coco Solo Hospital in the Repubic of Panama out of wedlock. He was a Citizen of Panama at birth.
Cruz was in his seventh year when his naturalization was completed. He is not natural born citizen.
I would tend to agree with Mr. Seidenberg that neither Cruz bor McCain is eligible to be president. While I’m not a fan of the natural born citizen clause, it is currently in the constitution and should be enforced.
Agreed.
today:
natural born citizen party national committee
filed supplemental papers in all previously docketed original proceedings/ mandamuses at each of the USCA Circuits having been petitioned to certify the question of natural born citizen definition to SCOTUS ASAP (next month January 2016 before the February 2016 caucus and primaries.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/293891326/Usca-All-Multi-circuit-Original-Proceedings-Nbcp-nc-2016-Cinc-Potus-Updated-12-22-2015
https://www.scribd.com/doc/289702910/u-s-Federal-Courts-Circuit-Map-1
Grab a theater-size popcorn, a case of beer, read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2840767/posts
then call me in the morning.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/293800532/Usca-All-Multi-circuit-Original-Proceedings-Nbcp-nc-2016-Cinc-Potus-Updated-12-21-2015
Arrest George W. Bush for high treason for allowing both major political parties to submit Constitutionally-ineligible presidential candidates for the 2008 presidential election while on his watch. Bush did not obey his oath of office to protect against enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Obama and McCain are frauds, as well as Jindal, Rubio, and Cruz.
None of these individuals mentioned above, save Bush, are natural born U.S. citizens.
Cruz has not obtain naturalization in the State of Texas after he was naturalized a United States Citizen in 1978. Texas CURRENT naturalization law was on the books SINCE the year 1869. Cruz
just rejected becoming a
citizen of Texas. Yet he is a
senator for Texas and not a 14th Amendment citizen.
Quinn’s article touches on two issues. First, whether Sen. Cruz is a “natural born” citizen. Second, who gets to decide. Quinn might be right on the first question. I think he is wrong on the second. I don’t think SoS Padilla has the authority to exclude him from the primary ballot. This is not the same situation as Lindsay v. Bowen in 2012, where there was no dispute about whether Peta Lindsay met the constitutional requirements. In the case of Sen. Cruz, the fact that there are arguments on both sides means that Padilla cannot exclude him because Padilla’s office is neither an appeals court nor the House of Representatives.
There is a certain irony in the fact that the constitutional argument against Sen. Cruz — who I assume considers himself a “originalist” on constitutional law — is an “orginalist” argument.
Remember in 1968 the SOS did not let Cleaver on the ballot
in CA. My first choice is CAGOP
should do its own venting. The
SOS should act if the CAGOP does not.
Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. John McCain was a citizen at birth. Barack Obama was a citizen at birth. If they weren’t, then (having never been naturalized), then they’re equally ineligible to hold office as Senators, and aren’t citizens at all.
But of course they’re citizens, and of course they’re eligible, and this whole thing is silly.
“Natural-born citizen” is a silly provision– the only clause in the Constitution so ill-advised, its authors exempted themselves from it. But there’s no evidence that any President or either major-party has ever violated it, or attempted to.
Cruz did not complete the naturalization process until 1978. He is a citizen because of a colective naturazation act
that was amended in 1978. He was never naturalized in the State of Texas under that state’s law of 1869. His form
of naturalization was a
collective form by Congress
and was not covered under 14th
Amendmendment to the Constitution.
There is no such thing as “Texas naturalization law,” nor is there any such thing as “collective” naturalization.
Ted Cruz was never naturalized. Either he was a citizen at birth, or he’s not a citizen at all. In the latter case, he’d be at most *eligible* for naturalization, but of course he’s not because you can’t be naturalized if you’re already a citizen. And Texas law has nothing to do with it– naturalization policy is a federal matter, and it’s always been that way.
@Mark Seidenberg,
Would you happen to have a more specific reference for the “CURRENT” Texas naturalization law?
“All persons who shall emigrate
to this State, and who shall,after a residence of six months, make oath before some competant authority that he intends to reside permanently in the state, and shall swear to support this Constitution and that he will bear true allegiance to the State of Texas, shall be citizens of the
State of Texas.”
Andy Craig there are such things as both “Texas Naturalization Law” (see above), and “collective naturalization”. See Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition,
page 1026. Congress has by collective naturalization made
person born in the Republic of
Panama or part of Canada (viz.,
the Garfield Act) may be citizens of these United States. Cruz was born on the watershead of the
Elbow River, that location has
not been territory of Michigan
since the 19th century.
Congress can make entire groups *eligible* for naturalization, but there still has to be an individual naturalization for any person wanting to become a US citizen. Ted Cruz has never taken (because he’s never needed to) the naturalization oath, in a naturalization ceremony. He’s not naturalized.
As for Texas, near as I can tell that’s a provision from the 1836 Constitution, when Texas was an independent nation. Something you (or somebody) oddly chose to try to obfuscate by editing the first line, which refers in the original not to “all persons” but “all free white persons.”
I couldn’t find any legit reference that such a provision is still on the books in Texas, and even if it was, it would be an irrelevant dead-letter, nullified by the U.S. Constitution over a century before Rafael Cruz moved his family to Texas. There is no such thing as “Texas naturalization law” that has been in effect within the lifetime of any person now alive.
Andy Craig please understand in
1978 Congress amended the law doing away with additional requirement for Cruz to complete his naturalization process in place at his Canadian birth. Cruz was in a naturalization process until
Congress amended the law in
1978.
Andy Craig,
as for Texas Naturalization of non-14th Amendment citizenship,
See Article 16, Section 18, of the 1876 Texas Constitution is the source.
From Emer Vattel’s “The Law of Nations,” 1758 (almost thirty years prior to the writing of the U.S. Constitution) – it is a well documented fact that the Framers widely studied this book. And by the way, you can do an electronic search of this entire document on the word “mother” and find that it only comes up twice, and never regarding her citizenship: ยง 212. Citizens and natives.
“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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” ergo, neither Cruz (Cuban father at birth), Rubio (Cuban father at birth), Jindal (Indian father at birth), or Obama (Kenyan father at birth) are natural born citizens, but McCain (American) is.
Also, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution clearly demonstrates that the Framers recognized two (2) classes of citizens – those who are natural born, and those who are not. They gave an eligibility pass to those who were not natural born but were citizens in 1788 (year the Constitution was adopted), and those in that class, at that time, would have had to have been naturalized to obtain their citizenship. Today, since the passage of the 14th Amendment, that class has a second way to obtain U.S. citizenship – jus soli – being born of the soil. BUT, they are still not natural born and still not eligible for POTUS since they were clearly not alive in 1788.
NBC = A PERSON WHOSE FATHER WAS A USA CITIZEN (NBC OR NATURALIZED) WHEN THE PERSON WAS BORN – WHERE EVER SUCH PERSON WAS BORN.
PLACE OF BIRTH MEANS ZERO.
TOO MANY SCOTUS MORONS TO COUNT SINCE 1789.