Once again the question as to whether Ted Cruz has a constitutional right to run for President of the United States is in the news. Donald Trump, who strongly pursued the argument that Obama was not an American citizen and therefore could not be President, is now stating a similar argument about Cruz.
On Twitter yesterday, Trump tweeted, “If Ted Cruz doesn’t clean up his act, stop cheating and doing negative ads, (I’ll) sue him for not being a natural born citizen.” He also tweeted, “Do Americans really want a Canadian born president? First non-native born in history?”, as well as “…natural born means born on American soil.”
Trump may not have to file suit as one has already been filed by five Cullman County, Alabama voters who are seeking a judgement stating that Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for President of the United States. They believe there is enough evidence that Cruz is a Canadian citizen and therefore not an American citizen.
Do they have a valid case? Read more on page two about the lawsuit against Ted Cruz.
Question should be did cruzs mom denounce her american citizenship before he was born. If so he then would not be american citizen by birth because his mother was not a American citizen at the time he was born. Plus it states one must live in one state on american soil and be american citizen in that one state for 14 years if american parent gave birth on foreign soil.
He’s not a trustworthy candidate bought and paid for
More than one suit against the Canada. And yes, ppl DID try to get zer0 but it was too late. Not THIS time! NEVER again!
That is NOT a federal court. And it takes more than being a US citizen, or even one at birth, to meet eligibility criteria for POTUS. Cruz was born a Canadian to Canadian Citizen parents, on Canadian soil. His mother renounced her citizenship in 1966, and even voted in Canada from ’66-’74. Dual citizenship wasn’t allowed and was nonexistent in Canada until 1977. Eduardo fails ALL criteria, and all you have to do is fail one.
This IS BS He is Eligible to run people that say is isn’t don’t know what they are talking about
I believe the Supreme Court knows what the are talking about. 1898 Ark case; A person (CRUZ) BORN OUT OF THE JURISDICTION of the United States (Canada) 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 (Cruz) of citizens (Cruz’s Mom)……(Excerpt from) The ARK Opinion of the Supreme Court written by Justice Gray. TED CRUZ IS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN AT BIRTH and ineligible to be President or VP.
Dan Rinderle Question: What are the Requirements to Become President?
Answer: The US Constitution lists three requirements for any individual wishing to become president of the United States. A president must:
1. be a natural born U.S. citizen. Someone may be born abroad, but only if both parents were citizens of the United States. The only exception to this was for those around at the time the Constitution was adopted. Their requirement was that they had to be a citizen when the Constitution was adopted.
About Trump, Google-> Trump Putin Scalia, article in EU Times!
Any wonder why he sealed his US and Canadian records? Just like Obummer!! Americans will NEVER let that happen again!! Without his or his mothers naturalization papers, we can’t even verify if he’s even a legal US citizen. Doesn’t matter though, he fails by being born in Canada, and not on a base. BOTH parents must be US citizens at the time of Eduardos birth too. NOPE.
arents, then you are a naturalized citizen.
Two Kinds of Naturalization – Critical to Understanding of The Debate
1. Citizen AT Birth – Commonly Referred to as ‘Collective Naturalization’
Many people insist that Ted Cruz is not a naturalized citizen since he did not have to go through a formal process and instead, obtained ‘automatic citizenship at birth’. And while parts of that statement are true, the part that’s missing is that ‘automatic citizenship at birth’ to children born abroad is not granted by any words in the Constitution, and instead is found in section 8 U.S. Code § 1401 of the U.S. NATURALIZATION laws.
It was under that same authority that Congress was able to naturalize the people of Louisiana, Hawaii and Alaska when those states were added to the republic without those new citizens needing to go through a formal ‘process’.
So, yes, Cruz was a citizen at birth – even though born in Canada – but his U.S. citizenship came ‘solely’ from the laws of naturalization of this country, and not ‘naturally’ as a result of being born in the USA to two citizen-parents.
2. Citizen AFTER Birth – Commonly Referred to as ‘Judicial Naturalization’
As discussed earlier, Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of the better-known examples of a person who was ‘naturalized after birth’ because he was not born in the U.S., nor did he have two parents who were U.S. citizens. The process that Arnold went through is what we typically think of when we think of being ‘naturalized’, including citing an Oath, etc., but as the Supreme Court has made clear, that is not the only type of naturalization found in the law.
In short, the law makes no distinction for the ‘percentage’ of naturalization needed to make a citizen naturalized and therefore, ineligible to be president. It doesn’t matter if one was born abroad to one citizen-parent (Cruz) or born abroad to no citizen-parents (Schwarzenegger), obtaining U.S. citizenship under both of those circumstances falls under the same word and laws – naturalization.
Put simply, naturalization is like being pregnant…you either are or you’re not. You can’t be ‘partially pregnant’ any more than you can be ‘partially naturalized.’
Naturalization is like pregnancy in that you can’t be ‘partially pregnant’ any more than you can be ‘partially naturalized’.
Naturalized Citizens Can Not be President
From a legal perspective, the Court has said that ‘naturalized’ citizens are not eligible to be president. Here’s how Justice William O. Douglas said it 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. Art. II, § 1.”
And in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), the Supreme Court said:
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
Conclusion
The debate over whether or not Ted Cruz is a ‘natural born Citizen’ is likely to rage for months since the phrase has never been directly litigated in the highest court in the land.
However, what has been litigated is that persons with same birth circumstances as Cruz have been declared in the past to be ‘naturalized citizens’ (see link below to Rogers v Bellei) and naturalized citizens can’t be president or vice-president. And with good reason.
Here’s what Founding Father Alexander Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers less than a year after the signing of the Constitution, and in reference to the natural born Citizen clause, which is a convincing warning as to why we should never let that happen.
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.”
The Constitution is Bigger Than Ted Cruz
As I’ve debated this issue online with Cruz supporters over the past several weeks, they’re often quick to remind me that ‘no court will touch this’, or ‘if Obama got away with it, what makes you think it will be any different with Cruz?’
Really? That’s what we’ve come down to…not whether something is ‘right or wrong’, but instead it’s become ‘can we get away with it?”
Isn’t the Constitution more important than one guy? I actually had one Cruz supporter admit that he knows Cruz is not eligible, but that we need to vote for him anyway because “he’s the only guy running that will uphold the Constitution”.
Say what? He’s literally telling me we need to be party to an unconstitutional act so that we can elect a guy who’s going to protect the Constitution? Maybe we should start robbing banks to lower the national debt while we’re at it!
Setting aside the issue that Obama was able to at least f**e his way into being born in the USA, is the fact that he ‘got away with it’ really the standard we’re going to have for ourselves in the future on such a critical issue? Once we let a guy in who’s only 33% natural born, why stop there?
As Americans, we don’t need another court case to figure this out and instead, we just need to read and apply those cases we already have. Additionally, we need to agree we’re not willing to break the law in order supposedly to save it.
Once we do, we find that Ted Cruz obtained his U.S. citizenship ‘solely’ as a result of being naturalized outside the U.S., which also means he is ‘not subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S. based on Rogers v. Bellei, and consequently, he is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States of America.
For more information, and cases cited:
Related Essay: https://www.facebook.com/notes/ron-smith/this-is-scary-president-cruz-would-not-constitutionally-be-subject-to-the-jurisd/1093074317404707
Attorney Mario Apuzzo: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Afroyim v. Rusk: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/387/253
Rogers v. Bellei: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
United States v. Wong Kim Ark: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
Schneider v. Rusk: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/377/163
Luria v. United States: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/231/9/
So why not over obama????