Tweet
Congressional Research Service: Ted Cruz Not Eligible To Be President; Two Citizen Parents
Birther Report
8/19/2013
Excerpt:
Congressional Research Service: Ted Cruz Not Qualified
How can a child born abroad of one U.S. citizen parent qualify when two citizen parents are required?
- Via David LaRocque -
The question was answered by the CRS in 2004
In 2004 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a document titled “The Constitution of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation”, and subtitled “Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002”.
The entire portion of the document dealing with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution (Presidential Qualifications) is reproduced below.
Interestingly, there is no mention of several important cases decided by the Supreme Court in which the meaning of “natural born Citizen” was addressed or discussed by the court in its rulings, including the well-known Minor v Happersett case and the Venus case, in which Justice Livingston quotes directly from Vattel on the definition of “natural born Citizen”. The analysis offered deals entirely with the issue of “whether a child born abroad of American parents is a ‘natural born citizen’ in the sense of the clause” in the Constitution.
However, there is still some value to be derived from this CRS analysis.
The article begins by noting that all presidents since Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence (not having been aware in 2004 of the true status of Chester Arthur as probably born in Canada of a non-U.S. citizen father, as a result of which Arthur burned all of his personal papers prior to his death in an apparent effort to conceal the truth of his lack of presidential eligibility).
This brief article goes on to make reference to the Naturalization Act of 1790 in which the following language appears:
“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea…shall be considered as natural born citizens”(emphasis added).
Drawing a connection with British statues governing “natural born subjects”, the writer comments:
“There is reason to believe therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.” (emphasis added)
The clear implications of this sentence are that, as of the year 2004, the CRS had concluded not that persons born abroad of U.S. citizen parents are definitively include in the class of “natural born citizens, but only that “there is reason to believe” that such is the case, and then only if the parents (two parents) are U.S. citizens.
Nothing in this analysis even suggests that a child born abroad of one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent could be included in the class of “natural born citizens” for whom eligibility for service in the office of president of the United States would be satisfied.
For those who would argue that somehow the Fourteenth Amendment (which does not even contain the words “natural born citizen” and was adopted to address the problem of the citizenship of the former slaves) altered the intent and requirements of the presidential qualification clause of Article II of the original Constitution, a footnote is offered which discourages this line of thinking.
The problem of resolving an issue arising from a provision of the original Constitution by reference to an amendment of that same document is articulated in the following sentence :
“Reliance on the provision of an amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by, but is strongly militated against by, the language in Freytag v. Commissioner…in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of ‘Heads of Departments’ in the appointments clause.”
So now we know that the Congressional Research Service concluded in 2004 that a child born abroad of parents (two parents) who are themselves U.S. citizens may be a considered a “natural born citizen” and thus eligible for the presidency.
We also know that any presidential eligibility argument based on the language of the Fourteenth Amendment (in which the citizenship status of the former slaves was resolved) is quite unlikely to be able to demonstrate any logical connection of that Amendment to, or bearing on, Article II presidential qualifications; nor is it likely that the Supreme Court would even consider the Fourteenth Amendment to be relevant in a presidential eligibility case.
That leaves us with a puzzling question.
Just how is it that one can argue that Senator Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country (Canada) of a non-U.S. citizen father, can qualify as a candidate for the presidency under the requirements of Article II that he be a “natural born citizen”?
It seems quite clear that Ted Cruz cannot qualify as a candidate for the presidency.
..................................
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...-ted-cruz.html
Birther Report
8/19/2013
Excerpt:
Congressional Research Service: Ted Cruz Not Qualified
How can a child born abroad of one U.S. citizen parent qualify when two citizen parents are required?
- Via David LaRocque -
The question was answered by the CRS in 2004
In 2004 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a document titled “The Constitution of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation”, and subtitled “Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002”.
The entire portion of the document dealing with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution (Presidential Qualifications) is reproduced below.
Interestingly, there is no mention of several important cases decided by the Supreme Court in which the meaning of “natural born Citizen” was addressed or discussed by the court in its rulings, including the well-known Minor v Happersett case and the Venus case, in which Justice Livingston quotes directly from Vattel on the definition of “natural born Citizen”. The analysis offered deals entirely with the issue of “whether a child born abroad of American parents is a ‘natural born citizen’ in the sense of the clause” in the Constitution.
However, there is still some value to be derived from this CRS analysis.
The article begins by noting that all presidents since Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence (not having been aware in 2004 of the true status of Chester Arthur as probably born in Canada of a non-U.S. citizen father, as a result of which Arthur burned all of his personal papers prior to his death in an apparent effort to conceal the truth of his lack of presidential eligibility).
This brief article goes on to make reference to the Naturalization Act of 1790 in which the following language appears:
“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea…shall be considered as natural born citizens”(emphasis added).
Drawing a connection with British statues governing “natural born subjects”, the writer comments:
“There is reason to believe therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.” (emphasis added)
The clear implications of this sentence are that, as of the year 2004, the CRS had concluded not that persons born abroad of U.S. citizen parents are definitively include in the class of “natural born citizens, but only that “there is reason to believe” that such is the case, and then only if the parents (two parents) are U.S. citizens.
Nothing in this analysis even suggests that a child born abroad of one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent could be included in the class of “natural born citizens” for whom eligibility for service in the office of president of the United States would be satisfied.
For those who would argue that somehow the Fourteenth Amendment (which does not even contain the words “natural born citizen” and was adopted to address the problem of the citizenship of the former slaves) altered the intent and requirements of the presidential qualification clause of Article II of the original Constitution, a footnote is offered which discourages this line of thinking.
The problem of resolving an issue arising from a provision of the original Constitution by reference to an amendment of that same document is articulated in the following sentence :
“Reliance on the provision of an amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by, but is strongly militated against by, the language in Freytag v. Commissioner…in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of ‘Heads of Departments’ in the appointments clause.”
So now we know that the Congressional Research Service concluded in 2004 that a child born abroad of parents (two parents) who are themselves U.S. citizens may be a considered a “natural born citizen” and thus eligible for the presidency.
We also know that any presidential eligibility argument based on the language of the Fourteenth Amendment (in which the citizenship status of the former slaves was resolved) is quite unlikely to be able to demonstrate any logical connection of that Amendment to, or bearing on, Article II presidential qualifications; nor is it likely that the Supreme Court would even consider the Fourteenth Amendment to be relevant in a presidential eligibility case.
That leaves us with a puzzling question.
Just how is it that one can argue that Senator Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country (Canada) of a non-U.S. citizen father, can qualify as a candidate for the presidency under the requirements of Article II that he be a “natural born citizen”?
It seems quite clear that Ted Cruz cannot qualify as a candidate for the presidency.
..................................
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...-ted-cruz.html
Comment