RottenApple wrote:baldeagle wrote:This explains the issues pretty well. I've read extensively on the subject. The natural born citizen phrase appears nowhere else in the Constitution. In my opinion, that means its meaning must be different from that of "citizen". Otherwise the words "natural born" are superfluous, and I doubt the founders put superfluous meanings in the Constitution. They argued over commas and semicolons for pete's sake.
Here is
one legal analysis. Here's
an article that links to some of the relevant legal decisions. Here's a
Michigan Law Review article that discusses some of the legal analysis issues.
The argument is basically this: only someone born on US soil to two US citizens can be a natural born citizen. A
law passed by Congress in 1790 while the authors of the Constitution were still alive extended the term to include a child born overseas to two parents that are citizens of the US
so long as the child's loyalty and citizenship remains with the US.
I believe the two parent rule applies and is the correct rule. The proper way to overcome it is to amend the Constitution, not ignore its meaning. In this modern day, that means squat. The Constitution's meaning is routinely ignored, as anyone who can read can plainly see and those of us who support the 2nd Amendment are painfully aware of.
If we were following the Constitution, Ted Cruz would not be eligible to be President.
I happen to disagree. Simply put, the Constitution is completely silent on what makes one a "natural born citizen". So the issue has been left to Congress to define, and they have defined it and redefined it at various points in our history. You even acknowledge that it is within the Congressional realm by pointing to the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795, then the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was later repealed).
As it stands today, law and case law (what little there is on the subject), states that a person, born to an American citizen abroad who 1) resided within the United States at least 5 years, 2) of which at least 2 of those 5 years having been after the parent reached 14 years of age
IS a "natural born citizen".
As for your statement of "so long as the child's loyalty and citizenship remains with the US", there is no indication that Cruz's was ever anything else. His family moved back to the United States
when he was 4 years old. A 4 year old is unlikely in the extreme to have loyalty to anything other than mommy & daddy.
Besides, if your argument was correct, then Obama would not have been eligible as 1) only his mother was an American citizen, and 2) Hawaii was not a state at the time of his birth. Federal law declared that persons born in Hawaii before 1959 were citizens but did not confer "natural born" status on them. And yet every legal challenge to his "natural born citizen" status, including those on these grounds, have been shut down by the federal court system, SCOTUS included. Indeed, John McCain would not have been eligible either for the exact same reasons.
The fact that Obama wasn't eligible was inconsequential, since no one cares what the Constitution says any more. McCain's parents were both American citizens and he was born on a military base which is US soil no matter where it's located in the world. So McCain is clearly a natural born citizen, although he's an idiot savant.
I had hoped that folks would read the links I provided, because this is not a subject that can be understood in a brief conversation like we're having. For the benefit of others who may not have the time to follow the links, I'll quote the most relevant section that refutes your claim that case law supports the idea that a natural born citizen is someone born of one American parent anywhere in the world.
In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the plaintiff was born in the United States, of a father who owed allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States. In each case, the Court determined that the plaintiff did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth: his nationality at the time of birth was that of his father, not his birthplace [32].
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court -- contradicting its earlier decisions -- ruled that children born in the United States, of permanently-domiciled alien parents, are U.S. citizens. But, to this day, the Supreme Court has never ruled that such children are natural born citizens. On the contrary, our nation's highest court, in its majority opinions, has consistently used the term "natural born citizen" only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to U.S.-citizen parents.
In Scott v. Sandford (1856), Justice Daniel's concurring opinion characterized, as unexceptionable (beyond criticism or objection), the viewpoint that:
"natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens" (Scott v. Sandford, 1856)
In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. The first class consists of children born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consists of all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents' citizenship. The Court used the term "natural born citizen" only in reference to the first class. Regarding members of the second class, the Court doubted they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. In the Court's opinion, natural born citizens are "distinguished from" aliens or foreigners, suggesting that a natural born citizen is someone who is not a "foreigner" (foreign citizen) at birth [05].
In Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. His father was a native-born U.S. citizen; and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage [99].
In Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States. When she was born, her father was a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.
To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a "natural born citizen", the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
As you can see, no case has yet been decided in the US courts (that I'm aware of) where persons other than those born of US parents on US soil has been described as a "natural born citizen" by the courts. So it would seem that the courts have viewed the term natural born citizen as a combination of jus soli (law of the soil) and jus sanguinus (law of the blood). IOW, a natural born citizen is one born both in the US (or more properly on US soil) and of parents who were both citizens. There is some evidence to suggest that only the father would be required to be a US citizen, but the courts have never stated that.
As for the Constitution being silent about its meaning, while that is obviously true, its meaning can be understood by reference to the meaning in common use at the time the Constitution was written and by the discussions the founders had about its meaning.
James Madison wrote "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."
What Madison is referring to here is jus soli, the legal principal that someone born in the US is a citizen, regardless of the origin of their parents. This does not define what "natural born citizen" means but what qualifies one to be a citizen, nor does Madison use the term "natural born citizen" but merely citizen here.
Some might be interested in
this article written by an attorney who argues that Cruz is not eligible to be President for the reasons that I have articulated here.
