So I get it.
People will be opposing CRUZ for President based on his birth. Here is a link to one person's viewpoint I read on another website: All Minor v. Happersett said was that Minor was a citizen because her father and mother were citizens. It did not say that the Constitution requires both parents to be natural citizens in order for an offspring to be a citizen.
Chief Justice, Morrison Waite, stated the following in the case: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." He went on to cite common law as his authority only to declare Minor to be a citizen. He did not go further and say difinitively what a "natural born citizen" is to be or not to be.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
In fact, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of "natural born citizen." So it is left up to the various lower courts and legal minds of the country to offer opinion on its exact meaning. We have no certainty in other words.
Moreover, did the Founders ever explicitly state in wide agreement that the Vattel definition from The Law of Nations (requiring TWO natural parents) was what they intended a "natural born citizen" to be? No they did not, probably because there wasn't wide agreement on the question in their day. Thus the question must be left up to the courts in our day to determine.
But there is an answer to this dilemma that has worked as a solution during the past 60 years, and I believe it will be the basic reasoning of any court offering any determination in the future.
Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of citizenship. The "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952" sets forth in one of its passages the legal requirements for the acquisition of such citizenship:
"For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if: 1) the person's parents were married at the time of birth, 2) one of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born, 3) the citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth, and 4) a minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday."
Thus according to the law since 1952, all that is necessary for someone to be a citizen is for ONE parent to be a citizen, which Cruz's mother is. Can it be said with absolute certainty that this opinion will prevail if the issue ever gets to court? No, it can't. But all prominent legal authorities today believe there is no court in the land that will deny Cruz eligibility for the Presidency because only his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth.
Chester A. Arthur met opposition on this very issue (U.S. mother and an Irish father), and he was not denied the Presidency because of it. That sets a mighty strong precedent.
But is Cruz perhaps ineligible to be President because he was born in Canada? On this question, the answer again is "No." The Naturalization Act of 1790 (passed three years after the Constitution was adopted) is the source for this. It states: “Children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
In today's global economy, many parents work outside of the U.S. temporarily, yet they don't stop having babies. The courts have very rightly determined (in accord with the Naturalization Act of 1790) that it is unfair to deny citizenship to a child of a natural born citizen just because the citizen was outside the country when the child was born. Cruz's mother is a natural born citizen. No court in the land will deny Cruz eligibility for the Presidency because he was born across the border in Vancouver.
I realize that there are many lawyers skilled in parsing definitions, codes, and opinions from the past to promote their particular agendas today. But when all is said and done, because the Framers were not explicit on this issue, we have only two sources to rely on to determine it -- the U.S. courts and Congress. They have spoken on this in Chester A. Arthur's day, and they have spoken in 1952. These two precedents, I believe, will prevail.
Minor v. Happersett | LII / Legal Information Institute
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shal…
LAW.CORNELL.EDU
And my above post came from:http://www.conservativehq.com/node/19983
MORE ON CRUZ BELOW :
No comments:
Post a Comment