The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
What's Cruz's argument that he's a natural born citizen?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:20 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set Read the Coulter piece on it posted here and did some digging myself.
Honestly dumbfounded at the number of "legal commentators" who are so certain Cruz would prevail on the merits. What is this devastating argument? |
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:22 PM Author: Tantric french chef i think it boils down to two things.
1. he said at the town hall that he "has never breathed a breath of air not being a citizen" therefore he is natural born bc he didnt have to do anything.
2. no court will tell him he cant serve cuz lolpolitics |
 |
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:25 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set I guess I just don't see how this is more compelling than Coulter's myriad legal arguments and citations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29884840) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 7:25 PM Author: Razzle-dazzle water buffalo dysfunction He had to rescind another citizenship. That's not doing nothing. Doesn't that matter? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885260) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:15 PM Author: Insanely Creepy Stock Car Shrine he didn't have to do that to be a US citizen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885660) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:29 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set For reference:
If Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen," eligible to be president, what was all the fuss about Obama being born in Kenya? No one disputed that Obama's mother was a U.S. Citizen.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and an alien father. If he's eligible to be president, then so was Obama -- even if he'd been born in Kenya.
As with most constitutional arguments, whether or not Cruz is a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution apparently comes down to whether you support Cruz for president. (Or, for liberals, whether you think U.S. citizenship is a worthless thing that ought to be extended to every person on the planet.)
Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,” eligible to run for president, and “corrected” myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!
But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a "natural born citizen." (Never let the kids at Kinko's do your legal research.)
I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy -- as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers (www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/shocker-anti-birther-ann-coulter-goes.html).
The Constitution says: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The phrase "natural born" is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin's Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin -- a Scot -- could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.
The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman.
It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance -- not his Scottish blood -- that determined his rights.
Not everyone born on the king's soil would be "natural born." Calvin's Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be "natural" subjects, despite being "born upon his soil." (Sorry, anchor babies.) However, they still qualified for food stamps, Section 8 housing and Medicaid.
Relying on English common law for the meaning of "natural born," the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents" was left to Congress "in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)
A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born -- but only by "naturalization," i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born."
Because Cruz's citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had "any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit" -- as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).
That would make no sense if Cruz were a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: "Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." (There's an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn't that.)
So Cruz was born a citizen -- under our naturalization laws -- but is not a "natural born citizen" -- under our Constitution.
I keep reading the arguments in favor of Cruz being a "natural born citizen," but don't see any history, any Blackstone Commentaries, any common law or Supreme Court cases.
One frequently cited article in the Harvard Law Review cites the fact that the "U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency."
Sen. McCain probably was natural born -- but only because he was born on a U.S. military base to a four-star admiral in the U.S. Navy, and thus is analogous to the ambassador's child described in Calvin's Case. (Sorry, McCain haters -- oh wait! That's me!)
But a Senate resolution -- even one passed "unanimously"! -- is utterly irrelevant. As Justice Antonin Scalia has said, the court's job is to ascertain "objective law," not determine "some kind of social consensus," which I believe is the job of the judges on "American Idol." (On the other hand, if Congress has the power to define constitutional terms, how about a resolution declaring that The New York Times is not "speech"?)
Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a "natural born citizen." This is constitutional illiteracy. "Natural born" is a legal term of art. A retired judge who plays a lot of tennis is an active judge, but not an "active judge" in legal terminology.
The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: "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."
Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.
As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: "It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship."
The most plausible interpretation of the 1790 statute is that Congress was saying the rights of naturalized citizens born abroad are the same as the rights of the natural born -- except the part about not being natural born.
Does that sound odd? It happens to be exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)"
Unless we're all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a "natural born citizen."
Take it like a man, Ted -- and maybe President Trump will make you attorney general. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:29 PM Author: big fiercely-loyal point "Natural born citizen" means citizen from birth. Cruz has always been a U.S. citizen.
The only argument that Cruz is not natural born is an originalist argument. There's some common law from the era that indicated the father must be a citizen if the kid is born in a foreign country to get citizenship. Cruz's dad was a Cuban citizen. Just his mom was American. But no one really takes this seriously because Cruz never had to go through naturalization proceedings. Are we saying the U.S. fucked up all these years? He's always been treated as a U.S. citizen. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:35 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set That is not what "natural born citizen" means, at least according to SCOTUS as recently as 1971:
Relying on English common law for the meaning of "natural born," the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents" was left to Congress "in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)
A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born -- but only by "naturalization," i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born."
Because Cruz's citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had "any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit" -- as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971). |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:52 PM Author: big fiercely-loyal point That's a clever argument. But the vast majority of scholars simply believe that Congress has the power to change the meaning of "natural born," which is synonymous with "automatic citizenship," not that any "change" is considered "naturalization." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885055) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:58 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set Although Congress certainly can enact legislation enforcing the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, see, e. g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303, its § 5 power "to enforce" is only preventive or "remedial," South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 326. The Amendment's design and § 5's text are inconsistent with any suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters the Free Exercise Clause's meaning cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. While the line between measures that remedy or prevent unconstitutional actions and measures that make a substantive change in the governing law is not easy to discern, and Congress must have wide latitude in determining where it lies, the distinction exists and must be observed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885090) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 7:02 PM Author: big fiercely-loyal point Except the legislation is not altering the meaning. Anyone who is a "natural born citizen" can run for Prez. That's the meaning then as it is now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885109) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 7:20 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set What? You just said above: "[T]he vast majority of scholars simply believe that Congress has the power to change the meaning of 'natural born.'" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885222) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:25 PM Author: big fiercely-loyal point Are you low IQ? The meaning of natural born is automatic citizenship. What constitutes automatic citizenship can change. Functionally this means that, at the time the Constitution was drafted (so even using originalism), the founders intended for the term to be whatever congress says it is, within the confines that it still = automatic citizenship. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885740) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:38 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set Damn, you're getting nasty itt. I was enjoying our SCHOLARLY debate until now, yikes.
Either way, you're still wrong. There is a conflicting evidence regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen." |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 10:49 PM Author: irradiated space knife Are you serious? I feel dumber having read that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886710) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 10:51 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set He got real nasty real quick. Obviously projecting.
Very sad. Absolute disaster. |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2016 12:38 AM Author: irradiated space knife His argument is literally that congress could decide only children of bald eagle trackers born at home with a mid wife could be considered natural born or conversely, only North Korean Mexican Jews could be.
It's very odd. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:39 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set No one is disputing that Cruz is an American citizen. But the Constitution requires the president be a natural born citizen. Born abroad, even if to American parents, does not make one a natural born citizen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29884965) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:55 PM Author: big fiercely-loyal point Based on what? Some article written by Coulter? Here's a HLR article by Katyal & Clement:
"We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.
...
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
...
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 7:17 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set I appreciate the link -- solid read, thanks.
I do think they overstate their case -- as does Coulter. There seems to be a genuine controversy over the meaning of and reason for using "natural born citizen" in the Constitution.
The two articles are both so certain they're correct that they're just talking past one another. It'd be nice if the two sides actually argued why one interpretation is more persuasive than the other. |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2016 12:44 AM Author: Costumed Silver Elastic Band Hospital "Are we saying the U.S. fucked up all these years?"
Why not?
To my knowledge, no one ever challenged his citizenship status. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:30 PM Author: cerebral library His mom was American. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29884876) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:32 PM Author: transparent digit ratio plaza (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29884893) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:33 PM Author: cerebral library Happy to litigate it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29884906) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:34 PM Author: mind-boggling rigpig house his mom was a us citizen. thats his argument (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29884912) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:37 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set But being abroad and having one or two American presidents does not make their child a "natural born citizen."
Relying on English common law for the meaning of "natural born," the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents" was left to Congress "in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)
A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born -- but only by "naturalization," i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born."
Because Cruz's citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had "any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit" -- as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971). |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:42 PM Author: mind-boggling rigpig house youre preaching to the choir here homey. i read coulter's article and it persueded me there's a legit controversey here. But the relevant question is not IS he a NBC, but whether SCOTUS would say he is given the political pressure theyd be under if he were the nominee. even if they thought that on balance the non-NBCmos had the stronger argument, theyd probably just let it slide, certainly if he were potus and probably if he were the nominee. this whole thing is such a bullshit technicality anyway. a baby has no awareness or recollection of which side of an imaginary line it was born on, which negates any concerns about the patriotic loyalty of a child born outside the us to us citizen parents who was then raised in the us (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29884981) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:44 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set Fair enough. I'm more interested in the actual legal arguments and less in the transparent partisan hackery of a SCOTUS result. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885003) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 6:36 PM Author: mind-boggling rigpig house what if a us citizen gives birth during a flight en route from germany to nyc while the plane is in belgian airspace? natural born citizen or no? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29884936) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 9:29 PM Author: Insanely Creepy Stock Car Shrine since when are planes natural, idiot?
|
|
Date: February 22nd, 2016 8:44 AM Author: Racy Green Piazza Hairy Legs Not unless the mother jumped right before delivery (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29888236) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 7:02 PM Author: Frozen fortuitous meteor HIS MOTHER COULD NOT CONFER CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE LAW AT THE TIME. ONLY MEN COULD
ORIGINALISM = CRUZ DONE HERE.
SCALIA FANS PLEASE REFUDIATE |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 7:05 PM Author: big fiercely-loyal point The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.11× 11. See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 7:25 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set As I said above, the two sides are talking past one another. The HLS article says "The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth. (See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21:)."
But the phrase "natural born" predates 1730, and was originally understood to refer to the soil upon which the person was born:
The phrase "natural born" is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin's Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin -- a Scot -- could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.
The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman.
It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance -- not his Scottish blood -- that determined his rights. |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2016 9:05 AM Author: indigo laughsome box office headpube You are contradicting yourself, first, in your interpretation, you say "soil", but then in your cite "allegiance"
Original meaning refers to "allegiance" so now when the genders are equal Cruz naturally owes half of his allegiance to the US. Not good for the President. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 7:27 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set Further, the HLS article's heavy reliance on the 1790 act totally fails to mention or account for this tiny problem:
Schneider v. Rusk (1964): "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)" |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 9:48 PM Author: ultramarine deranged cruise ship erk. this is persuasive.
don't like cruz, don't like coulter. don't think coulter's argument is open and shut, but it suggests there's an actual controversy here |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2016 9:09 AM Author: indigo laughsome box office headpube Cruz is DONE THERE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29888301) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 7:52 PM Author: Frozen fortuitous meteor Is the argument that congress passed a law to redefine a phrase in the constitution?
The 1790 law was after the constitution passed.
The differential treatment law came even later. Didn't this just help prove that the constitution means that cruz is not American |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:00 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set No, I believe the argument is that the 1790 law provides insight into what the framers understood the phrase "natural born citizen" to mean.
But there are plenty of reasons that is not the silver bullet Kaytal & Clement make it out to be. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:14 PM Author: Frozen fortuitous meteor Was CRUZ Father a us resident at some point? I literally know no facts but seems there's no argument that cruz wa natural born by land or blood. Sorry sjws! Your blood means shit under the law of the land. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885648) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 10:18 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set Cruz's father became a U.S. citizen in 2005. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886559) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2016 12:40 AM Author: irradiated space knife Hold up hold up when was Cruz born tho (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29887345) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:15 PM Author: fear-inspiring overrated den chad a law passed 3 years after the constitution was ratified?
edit: the fact that the law needed to be passed, and was passed in 1790 after the US constitution was written and signed into law, should in theory be the end of the discussion. They wrote a law granting naturalborn citizenship to children of citizens born abroad. Clearly prior to the law being written, such children were not naturalborn citizens.
But of course because of politics none of this will matter. Let us not get sidetracked by the facts. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 10:28 PM Author: Drunken exciting meetinghouse CR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886607) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2016 12:47 AM Author: Costumed Silver Elastic Band Hospital "Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”"
The fact that it took an act of Congress cuts against their argument. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:13 PM Author: fear-inspiring overrated den chad I dont think congress can pass a law changing the meaning of "natural born" as it is used in the constitution. They can pass a law changing the meaning in every other sphere, but not in the constitution. Such a change would require a constitutional amendment and a far greater consensus than an act of congress.
Think about it. They are basically changing the requirements for the Presidency through an act of congress, without the consent of 3/4ths of the states. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:25 PM Author: Shaky brethren school cafeteria They can pass a law redefining treason (in constitution) or high crimes and misdemeanors. Not all changes require an amendment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885732) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:26 PM Author: fear-inspiring overrated den chad I mean, I would argue that they cant but yeah at this point I guess we've accepted it and the constitution will become more and more meaningless. RIP Scalia.
For the record, if you can change the definition, you can change everything. The constitution and the federalist protections it provides become meaningless. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:37 PM Author: big fiercely-loyal point They can't change natural born citizenship to mean something than automatic citizenship at birth. So someone who goes through a neutralization proceeding to become a citizen at sometime after birth can never be prez regardless of what confess does without amendment. They can define what qualifies for automatic citizenship at birth. I don't see why this troubles you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885829) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:33 PM Author: big fiercely-loyal point This is not true even under an originalist interpretation when the term itself as used at the time did not encompass some specific meaning other than "automatic citizenship". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885797) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:36 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set You keep repeating this as if it's unimpeachable/undeniable fact, but it's not. There is a legitimate ambiguity over what the constitution's drafters intended when they included "natural born." The 1790 act is not the silver bullet you misconstrue it to be. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885823) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:42 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set You've now posted "natural born citizen" is synonymous with "automatic citizenship" seven times in this thread, yet offered nothing except the HLS article -- and the HLS article utterly fails to address the conflicting evidence of what "natural born" was understood to mean at the founding. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885870) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 9:01 PM Author: Bipolar umber masturbator No, it doesn't fail to address that at all. The HLS article suggests that the reason for the Act was to make it clear that neither the children of American fathers NOR American mothers need to go through naturalization. Their intent on this point was arguably ambiguous, and they clarified that intent. The passage of a law by the same congress that ratified the constitution is strong evidence that's what they meant all along, which is Clement and Katyal's point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886005) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 9:23 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court, in examining an immigration question not dealing specifically with the meaning of the presidential eligibility requirement, provided a lengthy examination of the English common law of citizenship at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and whether such citizenship was obtained by the place of birth (jus soli) only, or also by descent (jus sanguinis). As noted above, the Court found that the common law of England was that of jus soli, that is, derived from the feudal notion of the reciprocal responsibilities of allegiance and protection of an individual that was established in England by the place of that person’s birth; and that the latter principle of citizenship by descent (because of the citizenship or nationality of one’s father—jus sanguinis) was, as a general matter, the law in England by statute, and thus not necessarily as part of the “common law,” even though there existed a long-standing statutory recognition (since 1350) of the rights of “natural-born subjects” who were born abroad to British parents or a British father. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886160) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 9:34 PM Author: Bipolar umber masturbator What part of the fact that a Congress that was composed of substantially the same people as ratified the Constitution voted 3 years later for an Act clarifying the meaning of who needs to be naturalized does not seem like compelling evidence as to what they meant by "natural born citizen" at the time the Act was passed? I'm not trying to be an asshole here. It's obviously not a completely airtight case, but Clement and Katyal's point is that if you're trying to interpret the meaning of a phrase that could have a different meaning depending of whether the founding fathers were more trying to track English common law, or English statute law, or whathever you want to point to, and you have an Act passed three years later that clarifies exactly who needs to be naturalized, that's basically the best evidence you're going to find. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886246) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 10:13 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set I appreciate your respectful response, not flame. And I completely agree it's not airtight.
In fact, the CRS report I linked to below is exhaustive and compelling that the current weight of authority favors Cruz being eligible. But it's certainly short of definitive.
But I'm struggling with such heavy reliance on the 1790 act because it can be interpreted in two very different ways: The framers revealing the meaning "natural born" is one way. But you can also read it as Congress granting citizenship to the foreign born w/ conditions of that citizenship.
And that latter interpretation is explicitly supported by SCOTUS (dicta) in Schneider: "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president." |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 10:26 PM Author: Frozen fortuitous meteor as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point.
as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point.
Am I missing something? Even if jus sanguinis passed through the mother, it was still critical that the dad lived in U.S., which cruz dad didn't
|
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 10:51 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set TCR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886717) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 9:24 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: "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."
Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.
As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: "It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship."
The most plausible interpretation of the 1790 statute is that Congress was saying the rights of naturalized citizens born abroad are the same as the rights of the natural born -- except the part about not being natural born.
Does that sound odd? It happens to be exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)" |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 9:38 PM Author: Bipolar umber masturbator It's not a good argument to say that Congress passing a law as to how to naturalize citizens means that they must have meant to impose a narrow interpretation on the phrase natural born citizens. It's just not. And I'm not sure how the caveat as to equal dignity is supposed to change that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886275) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 10:15 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set I just addressed above at http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886528 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886537) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 8:31 PM Author: Drunken exciting meetinghouse Would be 180 if Obama gets an appointment. Trump sues on this question. It goes to Court, Cruz disqualified 5-4 by the liberal wing due to an originalist argument. LJL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29885784) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2016 12:50 AM Author: Costumed Silver Elastic Band Hospital And cites Scalia opinions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29887391) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 9:03 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set 'Natural Born' Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled and Not Going Away
While the nation's legal scholars differ over the exact meaning of the Constitution's requirement that a person must be a "natural born citizen" to become president, they're unanimous in saying Ted Cruz is wrong about an important point.
"As a legal matter, the question is quite straightforward and settled law," Cruz has said. "People will continue to make political noise about it, but as a legal matter it is quite straightforward."
In fact, the experts say, it is neither settled nor straightforward.
It's not settled — because the Constitution does not define "natural born," a phrase that appears in the nation's founding document only once.
And though the federal courts have chewed on it from time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court has never officially said what it means.
It's not straightforward — because at the time the Constitution was written there were different ideas about what the phrase meant and competing legal theories about where the power to confer citizenship came from.
The meaning of the term is so unsettled that scores of constitutional experts have been writing about it in the weeks since Donald Trump made it an issue in the 2016 campaign.
To review, Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, where his Cuban father was working at the time. But Cruz's mother was an American citizen, so under US immigration law, that made him an American citizen, too.
So he is citizen, yes, but does the Constitution require something more to be natural born? If not, why was the term there in the first place, instead of providing simply that a person had to be born a citizen?
The simple answer is, it's impossible to know for certain. The founders devoted little time to discussing it. One day the term wasn't in the draft Constitution. The next day it was, and that was just about that. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 9:16 PM Author: Talking Hairraiser Set Here is a thorough examination of the issue in this CRS report, particularly starting on page 14: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Cliffs:
-- There is no definitive answer
-- SCOTUS has never squared ruled on the issue
--There very little evidence of what the term meant at the founding or why it was included in the constitution
-- Scholars/commentators remain divided over whether "natural born" means citizenship is obtained by the place of birth (jus soli) only, or also by descent (jus sanguinis), though the contemporary weight of authority favors the dual approach.
-- BUT SCOTUS did conclude "natural born" meant ONLY jus soli in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that's a very old case and the question presented did not concern the presidential requirement clause. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 9:34 PM Author: white aggressive forum useless brakes Cruz eligibility rests on a 4-4 deadlocked court. Court can't rule until deadlock is broken. Cruz can't break deadlock. Thus it rests in Obama's hands. ljl. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3138784&forum_id=2#29886242) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2016 12:52 AM Author: Costumed Silver Elastic Band Hospital Find a court of appeals that will rule against Cruz.
Deadlocked SCOTUS is stuck with the decision. |
|
Date: February 21st, 2016 10:21 PM Author: provocative fishy property son of senegal TED CRUZ WAS NOT BORN ON THE LAND. HE IS A CANADIAN FISH-MAN. |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2016 4:29 AM Author: Blathering gunner trump supporter LOL AT THIS SHIT ORIGINALIST ARGUMENT
hate to tell you guys, but originalism died with Scalia.
no liberal court--and the court will be liberal--is going to decide against Cruz here |