I've generally followed the legal consensus that he can be because he gained his citizenship by birth and was never naturalized. However, I must admit that this article makes me think twice and want to examine the issue further. @NJlonghorn, do you have any thoughts on the matter?
@Mr. Deez -- If anyone but you had posted this, I wouldn't have bothered clicking the link. But I did, and I'm intrigued. I don't have time right now, but I'll try to read the original sources the article cites and get back with you.
John McCain was born at a US Naval air station in Panama. I guess that is considered part of US sovereign territory because there was never any discussion. I don't see how Cruz would get around this legally, but then the US is getting further away from the Constitution as time ticks by.
This stuff is completely out of my lane, but I am curious. If we were in the 19th century and it took some administrative paperwork for children of US citizens to be naturalized citizens, then I follow his logic that Cruz would not by the word of the law be a "natural born citizen." However, he was born in the 20th Century where upon his birth he immediately had all the rights and privelages of a newborn US citizen (please correct me if I'm getting that wrong). So...what exactly is the argument? The Constitution and Presidential eligibility requirements established in the Constitutional Convention have not changed. How newborns in Cruz' situation are naturalized changed, but that's not the actual requirement. Cruz, by the letter and, IMHO spirit, of the Law is, in this time that we live in, a natural born citizen. Whatever that statute that allowed automatic naturalization would be the effective/defacto "amendment" for Cruz' situation. Won't matter anyways because Rubio is going to win the nomination.
Cruz is clearly a "born citizen". The question is whether he is a "natural-born citizen". Being automatically naturalized by statute at the instant of birth is not necessarily the same as being natural-born, i.e, not in need of being naturalized in the first place. I don't know enough to say whether the argument has merit. But it is interesting.
Cruz is a US citizen by the nature of his mother being a United States citizen even though he was born outside the US. I have reached out to my friends in the US Border Patrol (USBP) and the US Citizen Immigration Service (USCIS) about this and even they have said he's a US citizen without question. These agencies and others such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs & Border Protection (USCBP) use these charts when determining a subject's claim as to whether or not he or she is a USC, a United States Citizen. https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/PDF/NationalityChart1.pdf
He is definitely a citizen. Those who don't think so are buying into a Trump conspiracy and don't know the law. However, mere citizenship isn't enough to become President. You must be a "natural born citizen." Most lawyers (myself included) say Cruz is a natural born citizen, because he was born a citizen. Here's an article that explains the issue well. However, the law professor who wrote the article suggests that though the Constitution didn't define "natural born citizen," the British common law (which guided American statutory construction at the time and to a point still does) did define it. According to her, it required someone to be born in British territory to be a natural born citizen. If that definition is followed, then Cruz is not a natural born citizen. However, he is still a US citizen, because he fits into the US statutory definition of a citizen. I'm not ready to say she's right, but I can't say she's wrong either. Personally, I hope she's wrong because if she's not, then Deez, Jr can never be President, because he was born in Germany (and not on a US military installation).
Mus, this article explains the issue including the case for Cruz being a natural born citizen. And you're right about McCain. When he was born, the Canal Zone was US territory, so he'd be a natural born citizen. What's interesting is that many children of US military personnel might be surprised to learn that they aren't natural born citizens. Here in Germany, many military wives give birth at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, which is on a US military base. They would fit McCain's situation. However, probably most give birth at local German hospitals. Space at LandstuhI is limited, and unless you're in the Kaiserslautern area, it would be a major inconvenience to give birth at Landstuhl.
Almost. She says you have to be subject to Britsh sovereignty at the time of birth so long as both parents are British. This includes, for example, the children of a British diplomat serving abroad. I suspect the same would be true of military personnel serving overseas, although this wasn't an issue in the 18th century.
the purpose of the constitutional language was to keep some brit with undetermined loyalties from getting elected or taking office as a result of the president's death. people forget how much early americans detested and feared the machinations of the brits The reason for the language has passed in the last 230 years and so we should not waste time haggling over what it might mean to us. Cruz was an american when he was born and a canadian. If we want to elect him, and I don't, we should be able to do so. There is a saying in law that when the reason for the law has ceased then the law itself has ceased. So let it be with brother Cruz. There are plenty of other reasons why he should not be president.
"The common law was unequivocal: Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory." NJ, this is from her article. Where am I wrong on this?
That is a common-law (judge-made) maxim, and it can be used to abrogate common-law rules. But courts have long and consistently held that the maxim cannot be used to abrogate a statute. E.g., In re McLarney, 153 N.Y. 416 (1897). I'm sure if it doesn't work for statutes it certainly doesn't work for the Constitution, but I've never seen that discussed.
Sorry, I clicked through to the Blackstone commentary that is at the root of her theory. Blackstone gives the example of an overseas ambassador. You are right that the article itself does not address this sub-issue.
I am not a legal scholar and not even a student of the law. Therefore, the legal discussion is above my head. However, having an engineering education, I am a strong student of pragmatics and probability. The OP is "become president?". Therefore, this is a moot discussion because there is less than a 2% chance of the issue affecting Cruz to become president. My answer is "no way, Jose" because there seems to be a certainty here . There are two fundamental pragmatic issues driving this. 1. This is a constitutional issue and there is not enough time to get this before the Supreme Court. This issue does not seem to be at the same level of importance as what happened with the first election of "W" Bush, which would cause an immediate consideration by the Court. 2. The Roberts" court has proven not to be controlled by a strict constitutional consideration. I would have to say that the politics would control the decision. If it came down to the Court's decision, this discussion might become important if Cruz became the sitting VP, and there was the case of the Republican president's death. In this case, the Court (if necessary) would have to be involved if the political situation dictated it.
Not enough time? Sure there is. Though they usually move slowly, the federal courts can move very fast of they want to. Furthermore, if he wins the election, the issue would become very important very fast, because Hillary will sue and force the issue. I don't think the Court would vacate a presidential election. They'd find a reason to let him take office.
So now CNN is showing what they insist are the only timelines of their tweets regarding Carson after Iowa and they don't say anything about him leaving the campaign. Completely refute what Cruz gave as his explanation and subsequent apology to Carson at the debate. Only Feb and I am already sick of the sleaze. Carson may be weird but he has my respect. Might be the only one left that does.
A New Jersey administrative law judge will issue an opinion today on whether Cruz can be on the New Jersey primary ballot. Link. The ruling will be advisory only; the ultimate decision will be made by Republican Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who also serves as Secretary of State. The plaintiffs are a law professor who is running for president, and a citizen group. I'm sure there will be an appeal (NJ Appellate Division, then NJ Supreme Court, then US Supreme Court).
Yeah, I understand that. The law may even be on the side of the plaintiff. These attempts rarely work though, especially for something as high visibility as this.