If Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada, He Cannot Be President: PERIOD

[Searcher44]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional 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".[28]
While the Committee of 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".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

 

[thanatos144]

You are sorely mistaken. Cruz IS eligible and IS running. You can still vote for him.

No, I can't. The founding fathers made the differentiation when it came to POTUS and no man or woman born with a foreign birth certificate qualifies. You're familiar with how Obergefell came out with the five (the majority) pocket Justices of the far left? Who do you suppose it will be who will sue if Cruz gets the nomination (after they wait until the 11th hour to push the issue so there's no time for the RNC to recover their blunder)? That's right; the same people the GOP pissed off about the Obama birther drumbeat: the far left. You think that rainbow freakshow drunk with power already (and owning the majority of the Justices in SCOTUS), are going to waste a nanosecond suing and getting an edge on the election this Fall?

They can fast track a case like that you know, because of the dire implications and pending election. They could cause the SCOTUS to convene in an emergency on a case like that. You're either foolhardy or actually a democrat posing as a republican Cruz supporter so the RNC thinks "there's still a way to get Cruz in"....until the hammer falls...

The founding fathers made the differentiation when it came to POTUS and no man or woman born with a foreign birth certificate qualifies.

The Constitution doesn't mention birth certificates.

I wonder how many of them even had birth certificates? Lol

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are sorely mistaken. Cruz IS eligible and IS running. You can still vote for him.

No, I can't. The founding fathers made the differentiation when it came to POTUS and no man or woman born with a foreign birth certificate qualifies. You're familiar with how Obergefell came out with the five (the majority) pocket Justices of the far left? Who do you suppose it will be who will sue if Cruz gets the nomination (after they wait until the 11th hour to push the issue so there's no time for the RNC to recover their blunder)? That's right; the same people the GOP pissed off about the Obama birther drumbeat: the far left. You think that rainbow freakshow drunk with power already (and owning the majority of the Justices in SCOTUS), are going to waste a nanosecond suing and getting an edge on the election this Fall?

They can fast track a case like that you know, because of the dire implications and pending election. They could cause the SCOTUS to convene in an emergency on a case like that. You're either foolhardy or actually a democrat posing as a republican Cruz supporter so the RNC thinks "there's still a way to get Cruz in"....until the hammer falls...

The founding fathers made the differentiation when it came to POTUS and no man or woman born with a foreign birth certificate qualifies.

The Constitution doesn't mention birth certificates.

I wonder how many of them even had birth certificates? Lol

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No kidding. Don't expect any logic from sillywet.
I haven't seen any yet.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The founding fathers made the differentiation when it came to POTUS and no man or woman born with a foreign birth certificate qualifies.

The Constitution doesn't mention birth certificates.

Have fun arguing that to the Rainbow-Reicht's Five in SCOTUS when (and not "if") they bring this matter before them... A Canadian (or Iranian or N. Korean or Russian or Chinese) birth certificate disqualifies a person from running for POTUS. Period.

Why don't you just admit you are going to vote for a Democrat? Because anyone staying in this fight as long as you have, after losing miserably, is obviously a liberal!

 

[Skylar]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional 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".[28]
While the Committee of 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".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

 

[Silhouette]

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

"Living Constitution"....If the Constitution is living, then the FFs meant for it to be alive like an oak tree, not a cheetah. Its change was to be excruciatingly slow, well thought out, stretched way over time with the ultimate in conservative and stubborn US Supreme Court Justices.. fought over and deliberated with every man, woman and child on board with a voice. Not smacked down by five "cheetah-progressives" on the Supreme Court.

Taken to its ultimate horror, five Justices could play the cheetah game with the Constitution and declare "yeah, let in Cruz, Akhbar, Chang, or Chevitz with their foreign birth certificate right into the POTUS seat." After all, if we are fast-tracking radical changes to society and our government with just five people thinking reallllllllllllllllly open minded about EVERYTHING new coming across their desk, what's the difference putting a foreigner in the Oval Office. Might as well..

 

[Skylar]

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

"Living Constitution"....If the Constitution is living, then the FFs meant for it to be alive like an oak tree, not a cheetah.

More accurately, the question is if the the founders intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively in the constitution.....or if it could be extended through statute of Congress.

Given that in the very first session of congress the founders extended natural born citizenship through statute, its pretty obvious that its the latter case.

And US law recognizes only naturalized and citizen at birth (with the exception of Puerto Ricans, which is irrelevant to this discussion). There is no third status. And Cruz was a citizen at birth. Leaving 'natural born' as the only possible option available to him.

 

[Syriusly]

A statutory Citizen (bestowed by man's pen/positive law) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature/natural law).

Cool. Now if only the Constitution agreed with you.

The stone wall you're up against is that the founding fathers made a point of differentiating and specifically insisting on "natural born" only for POTUS. You can't say "well they were speaking generally so we can interpret it any number of ways". No, you can't. They made a fuss about natural born for POTUS only. And that's that. A Canadian birth certificate means Ted Cruz can't run. I wanted to vote for him, so it's a bummer.

Any challenge to SCOTUS (and yes, the dems will bring one) about what the FF meant when they said "natural born" when it comes to POTUS only will find without a shadow of a doubt that anyone born with a foreign birth certificate does not qualify at all. It will be a cut and dried decision. 8-1 And 1 only dissenting because he's been paid off politically.

So you now claim a Supreme Court judge has been paid off 'politically'. Dear God you really are delusional! So tell us how this Supreme Court judge...........for life, has been "paid off politically". What is this Supreme Court judge going to do to better his life? Quit the Supreme Court and run to be a fucking State Governor?
You're the fucking dumbest poster that's ever been on this forum!

Oh, Sil's genuinely mentally ill. She's claimed that Gallup has been 'infiltrated by homosexuals', that Justice Kennedy is gay. .;...or that Justice Kennedy is being blackmailed by gays. The conspiracies all run together.

Don't forget- she thinks that the 'gheys' blackmailed the Pope too!

 

[Syriusly]

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

five "cheetah-progressives" .

Cheetah progressives?

None of those justices appear to me much like the fastest land mammal on earth....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

"Living Constitution"....If the Constitution is living, then the FFs meant for it to be alive like an oak tree, not a cheetah. Its change was to be excruciatingly slow, well thought out, stretched way over time with the ultimate in conservative and stubborn US Supreme Court Justices.. fought over and deliberated with every man, woman and child on board with a voice. Not smacked down by five "cheetah-progressives" on the Supreme Court.

Taken to its ultimate horror, five Justices could play the cheetah game with the Constitution and declare "yeah, let in Cruz, Akhbar, Chang, or Chevitz with their foreign birth certificate right into the POTUS seat." After all, if we are fast-tracking radical changes to society and our government with just five people thinking reallllllllllllllllly open minded about EVERYTHING new coming across their desk, what's the difference putting a foreigner in the Oval Office. Might as well..

You said you wished you could vote for Cruz.

What are three reasons you'd support him?

 

[Skylar]

Don't forget- she thinks that the 'gheys' blackmailed the Pope too!

Oh damn! How could I forget that batshit!

 

[Silhouette]

Don't forget- she thinks that the 'gheys' blackmailed the Pope too!

They did. Do a google search on what happened the year before and leading up to Pope Benedict stepping down..

 

[Skylar]

Don't forget- she thinks that the 'gheys' blackmailed the Pope too!

They did. Do a google search on what happened the year before and leading up to Pope Benedict stepping down..

Laughing...if someone types it on the internet, it has to be true!

What you lack is evidence, Sil. And its never hindered your batshit crazy conspiracy theories before. Why start now?

 

[Syriusly]

Don't forget- she thinks that the 'gheys' blackmailed the Pope too!

They did. Do a google search on what happened the year before and leading up to Pope Benedict stepping down..

Why would I enable your Konspiracy Theory nuttiness?

 

[Unkotare]

Don't forget- she thinks that the 'gheys' blackmailed the Pope too!

They did. Do a google search on what happened the year before and leading up to Pope Benedict stepping down..

Ah yes, they planned it all out from their huge, unsecret hidecomeout in the evacuated city of Tokyo!

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly introduced the strawman, not me. Remember, the thread is about Chris Christie? Do that Google search and start another thread about the Pope and "how wrong Sil is..".

 

[Searcher44]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional 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".[28]
While the Committee of 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".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it. Also I was going to cite that Madison quote on "place" but 1. It was from a discussion on a topic that I felt was too far from the context of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, 2. It definitely gives import to birth within the United States or it's Territories so it supports the main part of my opinion and was actually one of the many bits of evidence that influenced my final decision, yet it is just an opinion of Madison's and I could have quoted dozens and dozens of opinions other than the ones I did but it also holds no weight in Law. You are right to bring attention to that quote though, after all Madison is considered by many to be "The Father of the Constitution". I'll mention at this point as I thought I had already in my first post, I lean more toward what you call "a living constitution kinda gal" but make that "guy," and yet for me there is no way to make Cruz "natural born". One reason I didn't use Vattel more is that he is a favorite of the anti-Obama birthers, (I'm going to quote one of those in a bit) as a source for birthers he makes me flinch a little, the Orly Taitz types are irrational haters in my book.
Other than Vattel, English common law has been used as background in this argument extensively. It can be used by both sides to some success however I have been convinced most of these arguments are seeped in an overweening confidence in a direct linkage between "British subject" and "American citizen". Wasn't it precisely opposition to "subjection" to the British crown that was kindling to Revolution? The revolution was to lead to a unique government in history, a completely new experiment in social contract with "citizens" that had new rights and powers that had long been discussed philosophically by all the enlightenment thinkers but had never before had a nation become a living laboratory that would turn much of the enlightened rhetoric into institutions and statutes and turn lofty theoretical "natural rights of man" into a Constitution and laws on how to run this government and it's interactions with it's shiny new citizens with their newly endowed "natural rights". These new American citizens are a completely new breed in the history of the world, they are not watered down or even exalted copies of what British subjects were at that time. A new lexicography had to be invented for what was truly now a New World. I'll get back to "natural born citizen" first though a little more on Vattel. (I'm beginning to think I shouldn't have given him such short shrift in my first post and I wish now you had given some evidence he was unknown to the framers so I'm not potentially wasting a bunch of time.)
And here at the start with the Declaration of Independence purveyor's of Vattel's influence have some convincing evidence of his usefulness in the construction of this document;
(From Wikipedia) Sorry in advance about the lousy formatting!

The Declaration is not a philosophical tract about natural rights, argues Reid, but is instead a legal document—an indictment against King George for violating the constitutional rights of the colonists.[93] In contrast, historian Dennis J. Mahoney argues that
"the Declaration is not a legal document at all, but

a philosophical document influenced by Emerich de Vattel", Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and Samuel Pufendorf.[94] Historian David Armitage has argued that the Declaration is a document offinternational law.

According to Armitage, the Declaration was strongly

influenced by de Vattel's The Law of Nations, a book that

Benjamin Franklin said was "continually in the hands of the

members of our Congress".[95] Armitage writes that because

"Vattel made independence fundamental to his definition of

statehood", the primary purpose of the Declaration was "to

express the international legal sovereignty of the United
States".
If the United States were to have any hope of being recognized by the European powers, the American revolutionaries had first to make it clear that they were no longer dependent on Great Britain.[96] The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law domestically, but nevertheless it may help to provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws.

And regarding the Constitution I myself found this snippet from Book 1, Chapter

1, "Vattel's The Law of Nations" (Published in 1758 remember) Which seems to

obviously be if not the only inspiration for the Preamble then a prime source for

it's ideas and ideals. First I'll quote the short Preamble to refresh memories;

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

Now Vattel's snippet;
Vattel Book l, Chapter l, "The Law of Nations"
A nation ought to perfect itself and the state.
The second general duty of a nation towards itself is to labour at its own perfection and that of its state. It is this double perfection that renders a nation capable of attaining the end of civil society: it would be absurd to unite in society, and yet not endeavour to promote the end of that union.
Here the entire body of a nation, and each individual citizen, are bound by a double obligation, the one immediately proceeding from nature, and the other resulting from their reciprocal engagements. Nature lays an obligation upon each man to labour after his own perfection; and in so doing, he labours after that of civil society, which could not fail to be very flourishing, were it composed of none but good citizens. But the individual finding in a well-regulated society the most powerful succours to enable him to fulfil the task which Nature imposes upon him in relation to himself, for becoming better, and consequently more happy — he is doubtless obliged to contribute all in his power to render that society more perfect.
All the citizens who form a political society reciprocally engage to advance the common welfare, and as far as possible to promote the advantage of each member. Since then the perfection of the society is what enables it to secure equally the happiness of the body and that of the members, the grand object of the engagements and duties of a citizen is to aim at this perfection.

I find it very easy to distill this tract of Vattel's down to the short but glorious preamble. I'm sure I'm not the first to have made this link, it's just too unambiguously connected by words and ideals.
One more reference to Vattel and then I'm off him, and the only reason I'm spending so much time on Vattel is the more credence you give him as an influence on the Framers the less likely you are to consider Ted Cruz "natural born";

In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added [Vattel's] "the law of Nature & Nations"..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].
Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.
OK, to sum up....if Ted Cruz's parents filled out the necessary forms he is a U.S. Citizen, a naturalized U.S. Citizen by statute as I think you mentioned.
FROM: /uscode.house.gov/images/stat/108/4306.png
Naturalization Under Section 322[/FONT]

Most Americans who have children while abroad are able to transmit their US citizenship to their offspring at birth. They only need to obtain a "Consular Report of Birth Abroad" (form FS 240) at their nearest American embassy or consulate. (Contact the consulate in advance or check their website for details on which documents have to be provided and how to arrange an appointment.)

Section 301(g) of the INA
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent (TED'S MOTHER) and one alien parent (TED'S FATHER)acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
To sum up, as I said in my first post
"Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President."
"Natural Born Citizen," used only once had only one definition and that was a uniquely American definition. You can't rely totally on Vattel or British Common Law. I could give many quotes to where founders declared the reasoning behind that specially coined clause but John Jays is handy and echoes them all so let's use his...."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" So you say "place," or "jus soli" at that time was enough, birth on American soil would be insurance enough for lifelong loyalty to the U.S.A. I contend that would not be enough for the Founders worried of foreign influence. My readings and instinct tell me they would have required also jus sanguines, a bloodline, at least one U.S citizen parent.

Final Judgement: TED CRUZ is not, never has been, never can be called "Natural Born Citizen".

 

[Skylar]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional 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".[28]
While the Committee of 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".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional 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".[28]
While the Committee of 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".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

 

[Searcher44]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional 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".[28]
While the Committee of 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".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

The Congress of 1790 screwed up, that's not unusual. They destroyed the exclusionary principle desired by the framers totally. The Congress in 1795 had to block the huge gap the act of 1790 had created.


Comparing the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts
Indiana University ^ | 1790, 1795 | US Congress

1790 Naturalization Act:
"..And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens..."
1795 Naturalization Act:
"...the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States..."

ergo...no help for cruz. The 1795 Act only affords him ordinary citizenship. You must be a wild-eyed living constitutionalist the way you're trying to make that very special exclusionary clause "natural born citizen" evolve into an open door clause.

I think you're wrong on several points but I don't have much time right now. You mention Wong Kim Ark's case, if you read below Justice Gray's explanation rules out the possibility of Cruz being natural born, the bolded part says it all. A naturalized citizen has no path to natural born citizenship.

The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Justice Gray explained in that case:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.