Coulter: Cruz is not a natural born citizen

[Bigun]

This is great, Bigun!  That means Cruz is eligible.

Apparently your reading of that is not the same as mine. Perhaps you inadvertently missed this part "Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States."

[Sanguine]

Apparently your reading of that is not the same as mine.

Bigun - was he ever naturalized?

[Bigun]

Bigun - was he ever naturalized?

See the above! (I edited it to include the relevant language.)

[Sanguine]

See the above! (I edited it to include the relevant language.)

He was not naturalized - he was born a natural citizen.

[HonestJohn]

McCain the biggest of the RINO's jumps on board the Trump train now in derailing Cruz.  Interesting.

McCain was furious with Cruz over the government shutdown of 2013.  Furthermore, Cruz made it his signature shtick to annoy and irritate his fellow Republican senators.

Now, it's a really bad idea to needlessly make enemies of people who can harm you... and that's exactly what Cruz did.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

[truth_seeker]

The media creates these circuses to fill the daily news cycle.  What is happening here is exactly what the media wanted to happen - create a little wave that will carry a story a few days.  All they have to do is get someone prominent to answer a question and they have their headline - they know a public, political figure will give a non-committal answer to a question they have no information whatsoever on, something they've never thought about before.  The non-committal answer is then used as support for asking the question in the first place.  It is all reporter-driven B.S.

Bingo. If it bleeds, it leads. If it doesn't bleed, pick at it. Ask around. Oh yeah, go ask Donald Trump.

But in fact this story was coming out, sooner or later.

[katzenjammer]

He was not naturalized - he was born a natural citizen.

Sanguine, I believe that you are using a very limited definition of "naturalization."  We commonly see it as the process in which individuals voluntarily go through a proactive process to become a US citizen, culminating with the person being naturalized taking an oath of allegiance to the US.

In a more general (and legal) sense, naturalization is the process under federal law whereby a foreign-born person may be granted citizenship.  Collective naturalization, the most common form of naturalization, occurs when groups of foreign-born people are granted citizenship via legislation enacted by Congress (also referred to as citizenship by statute).

It was what I was referring to in the post above on which you commented.  There is no dispute that Mr. Cruz's US citizenship (conferred at his birth, assuming all of the relevant birth facts in common acceptance are accurate), is the result of collective naturalization, made possible by legislatively constructed statute.


There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz's citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute.  If I get a chance sometime, I would like to spend the time to highlight the findings of this case that bear on the current discussion.  Here is one particular quote of note:

"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."

I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question.  But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.

I will use myself as an example.  I was born in the United States to two citizen parents.  My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution.  That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.

[Jazzhead]

Here's a LINK to an instructive and recent commentary in the Harvard Law Review on the subject of natural born citizenship.   While reflexively anti-intellectual Trump supporters will reject anything stamped with the imprimatur of "Harvard",  those with more open minds may conclude that, yes, Cruz is indeed eligible for the Presidency. 

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.  Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.

[mountaineer]

While reflexively anti-intellectual Trump supporters will reject anything stamped with the imprimatur of "Harvard",  those with more open minds may conclude that, yes, Cruz is indeed eligible for the Presidency. 

What does that make John McCain?

[katzenjammer]

Here's a LINK to an instructive and recent commentary in the Harvard Law Review on the subject of natural born citizenship.   While reflexively anti-intellectual Trump supporters will reject anything stamped with the imprimatur of "Harvard",  those with more open minds may conclude that, yes, Cruz is indeed eligible for the Presidency.

Someday, hopefully soon, you will come to the realization that the use of logical fallacies (such as your use of the two above, ad hominem attack and appeal to authority) don't cut it with very many here.

The commentary of Obama's and Bush's former Solicitor Generals (Neal Katyal & Paul Clement) are merely comments by private citizens (holding no legal authority), regardless of where they are published.

[Scottftlc]

Here's a LINK to an instructive and recent commentary in the Harvard Law Review on the subject of natural born citizenship.   While reflexively anti-intellectual Trump supporters will reject anything stamped with the imprimatur of "Harvard",  those with more open minds may conclude that, yes, Cruz is indeed eligible for the Presidency.

I support Trump (I support Cruz as well).  I have a PhD.  So the anti-intellectual argument holds little water with me.

[Bigun]

Sanguine, I believe that you are using a very limited definition of "naturalization."  We commonly see it as the process in which individuals voluntarily go through a proactive process to become a US citizen, culminating with the person being naturalized taking an oath of allegiance to the US.

In a more general (and legal) sense, naturalization is the process under federal law whereby a foreign-born person may be granted citizenship.  Collective naturalization, the most common form of naturalization, occurs when groups of foreign-born people are granted citizenship via legislation enacted by Congress (also referred to as citizenship by statute).

It was what I was referring to in the post above on which you commented.  There is no dispute that Mr. Cruz's US citizenship (conferred at his birth, assuming all of the relevant birth facts in common acceptance are accurate), is the result of collective naturalization, made possible by legislatively constructed statute.


There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz's citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute.  If I get a chance sometime, I would like to spend the time to highlight the findings of this case that bear on the current discussion.  Here is one particular quote of note:


I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question.  But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.

I will use myself as an example.  I was born in the United States to two citizen parents.  My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution.  That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.

As you well know, this entire discussion, as it relates to Ted Cruz, is extremely painful to me but the FACTs are never-the-less the facts and you have laid them out about as well as they can be in this sort of arena.

Obviously you and I are among a very small body who studied these things when they were still being properly taught!

[DCPatriot]

love your Redskins avatar!   

[Jazzhead]

Someday, hopefully soon, you will come to the realization that the use of logical fallacies (such as your use of the two above, ad hominem attack and appeal to authority) don't cut it with very many here.

The commentary of Obama's and Bush's former Solicitor Generals (Neal Katyal & Paul Clement) are merely comments by private citizens (holding no legal authority), regardless of where they are published.

I don't support either Trump or Cruz,  so I have no dog in this hunt.   I do reflexively blanche at this birther nonsense, although I give Trump credit for consistency (he was a birther with respect to Obama and a birther with respect to Cruz).   And while I don't support him, I don't want to see Cruz driven from the race due to Trump's sleazy charges. 

  My view is simply that Obama and Cruz (and McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone) are ALL eligible to be President, on the basis of their being citizens by reason of birth to a U.S. citizen parent.   The Harvard commentary backs me up.  As for my alleged ad hominem, it wasn't addressed to any particular poster, nor was it necessarily an "attack".   Some folks are proudly anti-intellectual, and gravitate to those whose stock in trade is responding to criticism with crude insults.  I doubt there are many Ivy Leaguers who attend Trump rallies to hear him talk his trash.     

Why do you seek to have Cruz disqualified?   What is your motivation for wanting him out on a technicality rather than have that question decided by the choice of the voters?   

[Bigun]

I don't support either Trump or Cruz,  so I have no dog in this hunt.   I do reflexively blanche at this birther nonsense, although I give Trump credit for consistency (he was a birther with respect to Obama and a birther with respect to Cruz).   And while I don't support him, I don't want to see Cruz driven from the race due to Trump's sleazy charges. 

  My view is simply that Obama and Cruz (and McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone) are ALL eligible to be President, on the basis of their being citizens by reason of birth to a U.S. citizen parent.   The Harvard commentary backs me up.  As for my alleged ad hominem, it wasn't addressed to any particular poster, nor was it necessarily an "attack".   Some folks are proudly anti-intellectual, and gravitate to those whose stock in trade is responding to criticism with crude insults.  I doubt there are many Ivy Leaguers who attend Trump rallies to hear him talk his trash.     

Why do you seek to have Cruz disqualified?   What is your motivation for wanting him out on a technicality rather than have that question decided by the choice of the voters?   

Why don't you go back and read the ENTIRE thread before you start assigning motives!

[katzenjammer]

As you well know, this entire discussion, as it relates to Ted Cruz, is extremely painful to me but the FACTs are never-the-less the facts and you have laid them out about as well as they can be in this sort of arena.

Obviously you and I are among a very small body who studied these things when they were still being properly taught!

Oh, I agree my friend, that this is a very painful discussion.  It is painful to me for a few reasons.  One because of the facts of the matter and how they currently impact one of the leading Conservative candidates.  The second way is that because I can understand how painful they are to very strong Cruz supporters like yourself and many others here.  It goes without saying that I am extremely impressed by your commitment to the truth, regardless of how they *may* impact your choice of nominee.  But truth be told, when I saw Cruz enter the race, and then saw your support emerge, I knew how you would come out on things when the discussion reached this inevitable crossroad.  I admire your courage of conviction, sir!     But beyond those reasons, which are of a personal and temporal nature, I am grieved the most by the fact that the protections installed by the Founders for the very specific purpose of preventing an 0bama from ever reaching the Presidency, have been destroyed and now merely exist in the memory of a few.

And lest anyone despair about the matter's ultimate impact on the race, I still hold to my belief that the "ship has sailed" on this qualification.  (Understand that this little clause of qualification has been under attack for many years prior to 0bama (I have a link somewhere that documents all of the efforts over the years to force natural born citizenship to equate to citizenship at birth).)  0bama's two elections merely cemented its demise in place.

Of course Mr. Cruz is going to have to weather these challenges in the public square, and perhaps even in court eventually.  But bear in mind, all of the precedents set for swatting down the 0bama eligibility challenges, are fair game for Mr. Cruz and his advocates.

My prediction: it will ultimately not factor into his ability to win the nomination.

[katzenjammer]

I don't support either Trump or Cruz,  so I have no dog in this hunt.   I do reflexively blanche at this birther nonsense, although I give Trump credit for consistency (he was a birther with respect to Obama and a birther with respect to Cruz).   And while I don't support him, I don't want to see Cruz driven from the race due to Trump's sleazy charges. 

  My view is simply that Obama and Cruz (and McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone) are ALL eligible to be President, on the basis of their being citizens by reason of birth to a U.S. citizen parent.   The Harvard commentary backs me up.  As for my alleged ad hominem, it wasn't addressed to any particular poster, nor was it necessarily an "attack".   Some folks are proudly anti-intellectual, and gravitate to those whose stock in trade is responding to criticism with crude insults.  I doubt there are many Ivy Leaguers who attend Trump rallies to hear him talk his trash.     

Why do you seek to have Cruz disqualified?   What is your motivation for wanting him out on a technicality rather than have that question decided by the choice of the voters?   

I'll second Bigun's advice in his response.  (You know nothing about most of the members here, and what motivates us to participate in this forum.  Over time, if you stick around, you'll be in a better position to comment on that.)

[massadvj]

Oh, I agree my friend, that this is a very painful discussion.  It is painful to me for a few reasons.  One because of the facts of the matter and how they currently impact one of the leading Conservative candidates.  The second way is that because I can understand how painful they are to very strong Cruz supporters like yourself and many others here.  It goes without saying that I am extremely impressed by your commitment to the truth, regardless of how they *may* impact your choice of nominee.  But truth be told, when I saw Cruz enter the race, and then saw your support emerge, I knew how you would come out on things when the discussion reached this inevitable crossroad.  I admire your courage of conviction, sir!     But beyond those reasons, which are of a personal and temporal nature, I am grieved the most by the fact that the protections installed by the Founders for the very specific purpose of preventing an 0bama from ever reaching the Presidency, have been destroyed and now merely exist in the memory of a few.

And lest anyone despair about the matter's ultimate impact on the race, I still hold to my belief that the "ship has sailed" on this qualification.  (Understand that this little clause of qualification has been under attack for many years prior to 0bama (I have a link somewhere that documents all of the efforts over the years to force natural born citizenship to equate to citizenship at birth).)  0bama's two elections merely cemented its demise in place.

Of course Mr. Cruz is going to have to weather these challenges in the public square, and perhaps even in court eventually.  But bear in mind, all of the precedents set for swatting down the 0bama eligibility challenges, are fair game for Mr. Cruz and his advocates.

My prediction: it will ultimately not factor into his ability to win the nomination.

Cruz's citizen status has absolutely no effect in terms of whether I will vote for him or not.  I still support Rand Paul but if I decide to take the paper bag off my head I will likely go with Cruz.

[EC]

Do have a quick question, though I too think this particular ship has sailed, for good or for ill.

States each set their own primary ballots, correct?

Is there anything to prevent one or several states removing Cruz from the primary ballot, pending legal clarification?

To expand slightly - the race is moving from the realm of public opinion to the realm of cold, hard votes. Being "removed" from a couple of primaries could seriously impact any chance at the nomination.

[Bigun]

But beyond those reasons, which are of a personal and temporal nature, I am grieved the most by the fact that the protections installed by the Founders for the very specific purpose of preventing an 0bama from ever reaching the Presidency, have been destroyed and now merely exist in the memory of a few.

Our founders were learned men and did their best but there is no way they could ensure the preservation of what they created. That had to be left to their posterity who have largely failed!

[katzenjammer]

Do have a quick question, though I too think this particular ship has sailed, for good or for ill.

States each set their own primary ballots, correct?

Is there anything to prevent one or several states removing Cruz from the primary ballot, pending legal clarification?

To expand slightly - the race is moving from the realm of public opinion to the realm of cold, hard votes. Being "removed" from a couple of primaries could seriously impact any chance at the nomination.

Good points, EC.  When I say that the "ship has sailed" I mean it in (very general) terms of the opinion of the body politic.

I certainly can't predict what may happen at the level of granularity that you bring up.  But I do believe that because of the "sailed ship," the likelihood of any such challenges having an impact is slight.  I guess that we just have to watch and see...   

[Bigun]

Do have a quick question, though I too think this particular ship has sailed, for good or for ill.

States each set their own primary ballots, correct?

Is there anything to prevent one or several states removing Cruz from the primary ballot, pending legal clarification?

To expand slightly - the race is moving from the realm of public opinion to the realm of cold, hard votes. Being "removed" from a couple of primaries could seriously impact any chance at the nomination.

Actually EC primary elections are NOT a function of the states at all. They are a function of the various political parties and governed by their rules so long as those rules are within the bounds of the law. I know of nothing which would allow that to happen in my state but that still leaves 49 others. 

Your question does raise another however and one that I have asked repeatedly and never gotten a satisfactory answer. The question is this: "Who exactly  is responsible for vetting candidates for the various federal offices to ensure that those candidates pass Constitutional muster?" and "What are the penalties for their failure to do so?"

[katzenjammer]

Our founders were learned men and did their best but there is no way they could ensure the preservation of what they created. That had to be left to their posterity who have largely failed!

Yes, we've failed miserably.

[katzenjammer]

Your question does raise another however and one that I have asked repeatedly and never gotten a satisfactory answer. The question is this: "Who exactly  is responsible for vetting candidates for the various federal offices to ensure that those candidates pass Constitutional muster?" and "What are the penalties for their failure to do so?"

Yes, I've never seen those questions answered satisfactorily either.  It seems that we've been stumbling along through time, relying largely on the integrity of the candidates and parties in the past.

[alicewonders]

I support Trump (I support Cruz as well).  I have a PhD.  So the anti-intellectual argument holds little water with me.

This poster has stated that his aim is to "embarrass" and "shame" Trump supporters.  He thinks that by insulting Trump's supporters and implying they are stupid, that they will not vote for Trump because someone as exceptionally intellectual as he is has ridiculed and mocked them. 

Hell of a strategy, personally, I think he's really working for the Trump campaign.  Everything he says just makes Trump more popular.  Reverse psychology - it's very clever actually!  Kudos Jazzcaput!