The Debate and New Englander and Yale Review

Republican presidential contenders Ted Cruz and Donald Trump engaged in a heated debate Thursday night over whether Cruz’s Canadian birthplace prevents him from being eligible to hold the office of president.

“You are an American, as is everyone on this stage,” Cruz shot back. “I suggest we focus on who is best prepared to be commander in chief. Because that’s the most important question facing the country.”

Rafael Cruz in typical lawyer style deflecting the issue, negating the law.

Below are screenshots of the New Englander and Yale Review III – 1845

Let’s begin at pg 413 and note the following.

In the intercourse of nations, and in the public law which regulates it, the term ‘ citizen’ is used with respect to our own and other republican governments wherever ‘ subject’ is used with respect to monarchies, and includes all persons under the protection of such government,as owing allegiance to it. For example, the eighth article of the treaty of 1783 stipulates that ” the navigation of the river Mississippi shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.” Under such a usage, in the numerous cases of prize and capture with which, up to the close of the last war, the Federal Courts were crowded, the rights of parties in suit, under the law of nations, depended on their citizenship, and that on their allegiance.

YR413

on to page 414

The expression ‘ citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘ natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance
by birth to foreign states ; in the other cases, the word ‘ citizen’ issued without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication
that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members.

YR414

Lets look at allegiance on page 417

Our inquiries, therefore, conducted through the several departments of natural and international law, the law and practice under the Constitution, and the municipal law of the states, lead to the conclusion, that the rights and duties which distinguish the status of the citizen, appertain to all free persons born in a state, and so owing allegiance by birth to the state and the United States ;—unless indeed we venture on the desperate alternative of calling in question that cardinal doctrine of the natural and the common law, the doctrine of natural allegiance.

YR417

That being said, here on page 418 is the law of nations,
We conclude, then, that wherever definite personal rights, recognized by the law, depend upon the use of the term citizen,—whether in the law of nations, as received and applied in this country, in treaties, in the Constitution of the United States, in the practice of the Federal Courts, or in the constitutions and bills of rights of the states,—it applies to all persons, who, being born under the jurisdiction of a state or the United States, or having been duly naturalized, owe allegiance and its incidents according to the doctrine of the common law.


YR418B

Bringing that the Law of Nations and the definition of Natural Born Citizenship into one harmonious relationship, again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

 

Rafael Edward Cruz was born to a foreign father (Cuban National) in a foreign country. Rafael Edward Cruz’s own ‘Birth Certificate’ proves it.

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael Edward Cruz is not eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States. PERIOD!

Thank you Ann Coulter

WE’RE ALL RUTH BADER GINSBURG NOW

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.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

 

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html