Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president. [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)81. I am an attorney, and here's why I disagree
One principle of statutory (or constitutional) construction is to assume that there was a reason for the wording chosen. The attack on Cruz's eligibility rests on the argument that "natural born citizen" is precisely equivalent to "person born in the United States". Well, if that were the intended meaning, why didn't the Framers just say that?
Here's the actual wording:
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....
They could easily have written:
No Person except one born in the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President....
That would have been much simpler, clearer, and easier to apply.
The most natural reading of the actual language is that it simply refers to someone who was a citizen at the moment of birth, without a subsequent naturalization proceeding. It doesn't define "natural born Citizen", and therefore recognizes that the definition may change over time. That leaves open the possibility that subsequent changes in the law will affect who was a citizen at birth.
Congress can't amend the Constitution but can change the facts to which the Constitution applies. For example, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects private property from takings by the federal government: "{N}or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." That doesn't give anyone a right to federally owned land. BUT when Congress passed the Homestead Act, by which vast stretches of federally owned land were conveyed to private individuals, it created rights that were then covered by the Due Process Clause. Today, it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to confiscate lands that were once publicly owned. Congress could have chosen to retain such lands, but when it chose to convey them, it created rights in the recipients (and their successors in interest) that now have the protection of the Constitution. I think the same is true of the Congressional enactments that confer citizenship at birth upon someone in Cruz's situation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
'Congress simply does not have the power to convert someone born outside the United States
elleng
Jan 2016
#3
It's already defined in contemporary statute law (Naturalization Act 1790)
Spider Jerusalem
Jan 2016
#24
Whether you misunderstood something isn't clear because there is so little law on this point
Jim Lane
Jan 2016
#98
The fact that he had citizenship at birth due to his mother being a citizen,
prayin4rain
Jan 2016
#99
See my comment about people who're too stupid to grasp the difference between "native-born"...
Spider Jerusalem
Jan 2016
#34
One cannot have differences of opinion in regard to established facts.
Spider Jerusalem
Jan 2016
#19
Unfortunately, it's clear that the Constitution DOES give weight to "trivial accidents of birth"
Jim Lane
Jan 2016
#96
That's right! Wish something would derail that nasty little troll's campaign.
SammyWinstonJack
Jan 2016
#40
This shit was stupid when they threw it at obama, and it's just as stupid against Cruz
Scootaloo
Jan 2016
#26
Well, yes, the post I was replying to was about amending the Constitution (nt)
Nye Bevan
Jan 2016
#56
I'm not sure that any constitutional amendment on who is eligible to be president
Nye Bevan
Jan 2016
#67
Why would you want to spoil all of the fun, we could just be getting started.
A Simple Game
Jan 2016
#79
this is just getting silly - of course he is a natural-born citizen as he was a US citizen at birth
DrDan
Jan 2016
#42
Yep, it's kind of ridiculous and no way should any of our candidates touch it,
Nye Bevan
Jan 2016
#58
"Cruz was naturalized at birth." Well, I am not a Constit. Lawyer, but that sounds like
yellowcanine
Jan 2016
#52
That would be because he wasn't born in the US. He was born in Canada. No one disputes that.
WillowTree
Jan 2016
#64
Not necessarily true that someone born abroad to a US citizen is automatically a US citizen.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2016
#68
Thankfully, we have this constitutional law professor to tell us what the founders intended.
hughee99
Jan 2016
#60
With all due respect, the writer in the OP link was suggesting that they know what the founders
hughee99
Jan 2016
#75
Acquisition of foreign citizenship is not sufficient to extinguish existing US citizenship
Spider Jerusalem
Jan 2016
#87
how utterly dumb and calculating of the gopE not to get this squared away before primaries
restorefreedom
Jan 2016
#100
The answer does not exist yet and will not until the SCOTUS interprets "natural born citizen," as
merrily
Jan 2016
#101
Right, there won't be a final answer until there's a proper 'case and controversy.'
elleng
Jan 2016
#110