Ted Cruz’s citizenship continues to be a topic of discussion in the 2016 race, and it seems its one issue in which the far-left and the far-right might agree.
At the heart of the issue is the definition of “natural born citizen.” While many consider that to mean that one must be born inside of the country in order to serve in the Oval Office, others claim that one is natural born if you have citizenship at birth. The latter theory is backed up somewhat by the nominations of both John McCain and George Romney, both of which were born outside of this country’s borders.
However, since neither man made it to the White House, no Supreme Court case has ever been brought forth that specifically tackled the issue. As such, both sides continue to wage a war of opinion.
You can find the interview on the next page:
The original intent of the Constitution trumps all of the supposed laws that have been passed as well as any judgments. Without an amendment, the original intent still stands.
I believe it says BOTH parents.
As understood by the Founders and as applied to the U.S. Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” derived its meaning less from English Common Law, than from Vattel’s “The Law of Nations.”
They knew from reading Vattel that a “natural born citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents (Vattel, Section 212 in original French and English translation).
That is the definition of a “natural born citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.
There are historical arguments too numerous to include in a short article, which explain why the definition of “natural born subject,” as found in the English Common Law, was not used as the basis of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution because Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a constitutional republic.
Legal precedent and interpretation leave no doubt regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen.”
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
“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.”
John Bingham, father of the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to American slaves after the Civil War, stated on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”
In 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
As recently as September 2008, in a Michigan Law Review article entitled “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause,” Lawrence B. Solum, then John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote:
“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.”
Citizen parents, plural
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/…/the-difference-betwe…
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Kathy Heil
January 12 at 6:43pm ·
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”
In 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen
Many members of the political-media establishment are either deliberately misrepresenting facts for political reasons or they are simply ignorant of those facts,…
FAMILYSECURITYMATTERS.ORG
Joe Ward I looked. Three birth certificate…none of them real….and 3 videos saying he was born in Kenya. 1. Obama speaking. 2. Michelle/Michael speaking. 3. His Kenyan grandma saying she watched him being born at the hospital now named after him.
Rescind obama’s presidency then proceed with a rescission of everything he has done as president. He got the office using fraudulent records, and only one parent was legal according to the recent ruling of the court vs. Cruz.
Christopher Micallef WRONG!!!!!
You know Cruz needs to take care of this that way we none for sure that’s the only way
Janet Ochoa , and I wondering why it took him almost 2 yrs to come up with a birth certificate ? I know for a fact you can get your birth certificate in less than 2 wks if from out of state … But to forge one they have to make sure all loop holes are covered … And if the BC isn’t enough proof maybe his bogus SS# is
Samuel Johnson ya know…..I think he lies….. lol
If that is the case, Obama should NOT be president!!!
How is OBAMA in office?????