Coulter: Cruz is Not a Natural Born Citizen

The Law of Nations is clear and specific that both parents must be citizens. It's important because not only was it the most substantial and relevant document to which the term was defined, but also it was circulated among the founders, in its original French, as many were fluent. Franklin requested 3 copies of the most current French version of the document in 1774-1775 because it was in high demand among the delegates of the Continental Congress.

Benjamin Franklin to: Charles William Frederic Dumas
Dear Sir,

Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.


I received your several favors, of May 18th, June 30th, and July 8th, by Messrs. Vaillant and Pochard;(1) whom if I could serve upon your recommendation, it would give me great pleasure. Their total want of English is at present an obstruction to their getting any employment among us; but I hope they will soon obtain some knowledge of it. This is a good country for artificers or farmers; but gentlemen of mere science in les belles lettres cannot so easily subsist here, there being little demand for their assistance among an industrious people, who, as yet, have not much leisure for studies of that kind.

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Expose de ce qui s'est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies," bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.(2) We are making all the provision in our power here to oppose that force, and we hope we shall be able to defend ourselves. But, as the events of war are always uncertain, possibly, after another campaign, we may find it necessary to ask the aid of some foreign power.

Law of Nations is pretty much Constitutional law, as it has been cited so frequently in SCOTUS, that it frankly shouldn't even be up for debate what the meaning of natural-born citizen is.
 
Something fun I came up with having gotten into this topic, is that there is currently a person whom is an heir and royalty in a foreign country that would have also been eligible for President based on this non-sense that a single parent being a citizen is sufficient. My argument is that certainly the founders weren't ignorant and there is no reason they would have even provided the restriction of Natural-Born citizen if it didn't have the explicit intent of preventing that very scenario from being possible.

Fun Fact: Prince Albert of Monaco, whose mother was an American citizen, was eligible to be President of the United States according to these people up until he took reign in Monaco.

Does that not sound unusual from the standpoint of why the founders made the restriction in the first place? Second, why wouldn't the crown attempt to do that very thing if the option was available.

eh, even having 2 American citizens as parents wouldn't prevent that. If one or both of the parents are dual citizens they can pass on that citizenship to their child and a lot of nations don't have a natural born requirement to run for primary office, some don't even have a citizenship requirement.

It would still be extremely difficult to accomplish but still possible.
 
I think the bottom line is, despite all the squabble in this thread, it really doesn't matter.

This country stopped following the constitution long ago. It really doesn't matter who is ineligible, they will still get in with no opposition.
 
I think the bottom line is, despite all the squabble in this thread, it really doesn't matter.

This country stopped following the constitution long ago. It really doesn't matter who is ineligible, they will still get in with no opposition.


Probably the truth. As long as someone is allowed to run and win, they won't kick that person out. Reminds me of how that Austrian guy became the German Fuehrer even though he shouldn't have really been eligible to begin with.
 
So there isn't anything legal which says both parents must be citizens for their child to be a "natural born" citizen. There are two ways to become a citizen- by birth ("natural born") or by naturalization.

IF a US citizen has a child, is that child automatically a citizen? If so, the child is a "natural born" citizen.

Then again, at the time of the founding, citizenship was reserved for "free white persons of good character". Cruz, his father coming from Cuba and his mother a US citizen, would not have been included for racial reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

Cruz's father is a white Cuban of European ancestry. There has never been any racial discrimination against Spanish people in the United States. States like Louisiana and Florida had prominent citizens of Spanish ancestry going back to before the Revolution. Admiral Farragut's father was from Spain.

And the question is not really whether Cruz was born an American or not. Everybody acknowledges he was born American. The question is whether being born American is the same as being a "Natural Born Citizen". Some argue that being a "Natural Born Citizen" requires more than just being born American and requires one to meet additional burdens such as being born in the actual United States (which would mean George Romney, Barry Goldwater, and John McCain were not eligible either) or having two American parents. This argument is not new. It happened with McCain too, but since McCain's status was far sketchier than Cruz's and they let him run, I don't see how Cruz could be denied.
 
It happened with McCain too, but since McCain's status was far sketchier than Cruz's and they let him run, I don't see how Cruz could be denied.

Did McCain ever have dual citizenship? I think that's the key and evidently Rafael does too; which is why he went out of his way to give up his Canadian citizenship shortly before his run.
 
Did McCain ever have dual citizenship? I think that's the key and evidently Rafael does too; which is why he went out of his way to give up his Canadian citizenship shortly before his run.

I think that was for political, not legal, reasons.
 
The Law of Nations is clear and specific that both parents must be citizens. It's important because not only was it the most substantial and relevant document to which the term was defined, but also it was circulated among the founders, in its original French, as many were fluent. Franklin requested 3 copies of the most current French version of the document in 1774-1775 because it was in high demand among the delegates of the Continental Congress.

Benjamin Franklin to: Charles William Frederic Dumas


Law of Nations is pretty much Constitutional law, as it has been cited so frequently in SCOTUS, that it frankly shouldn't even be up for debate what the meaning of natural-born citizen is.

You're mixing up two different things, the definition of the phrase natural born citizen, and the legal prerequisites for counting as one.

The phrase natural born citizen simply refers to anyone and everyone who is been a citizen by birth. That is what it has always meant, including when the Constitution was written and ratified. That meaning has not changed.

The legal prerequisites for being a citizen by birth can change and have changed, according to legislation.

The original intent of the Constitution applies to what the phrase natural born citizen means. But it doesn't preclude the federal government from changing laws that determine who is and isn't one.
 
we'll just have to disagree.

If some other country decides to say that they extend citizenship to everyone in the world, making all US citizens dual citizens of the US and that other country, would that mean that there don't exist any natural born US citizens any more?
 
If some other country decides to say that they extend citizenship to everyone in the world, making all US citizens dual citizens of the US and that other country, would that mean that there don't exist any natural born US citizens any more?

I don't see where I said anything implying such a thing.
 


I'm surprised, that as a highly praised attorney/legal professional, Ted Cruz would cite the 1790 Naturalization Act as proof that he is a "natural born citizen". This section of the 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed and replaced just 5 years later, under the Presidency of George Washington, by the 3rd US Congress, with the 1795 Naturalization Act. The 1795 Act removed the term "natural born citizen" and replaced it with "citizen". Citizens via these Acts of Naturalization; how are they considered anything but 'naturalized citizens'? Anyway, both Ted Cruz and the Harvard Law Review are wrong for relying on this 1790 legislation, and they both have the background to know better than that.
 
Citizens via these Acts of Naturalization; how are they considered anything but 'naturalized citizens'?

If those acts of naturalization include any stipulations that make any people citizens by birth, then those people would be natural born citizens, since that's what the phrase natural born citizen has always meant, including in the Constitution.
 
I don't think either Donald Trump or Anne Coulter could care less about the original intent of any part of the U.S. Constitution unless it serves their purposes. I'm not a Ted Cruz guy myself, but this is one of those issues where I'm a bit skeptical, as was the case with McCain not being born on the continental U.S. supposedly being an issue.

McCain unsure whether Cruz is eligible for presidency

David Jackson, USA TODAY 10:04 a.m. EST January 7, 2016

“I don’t know the answer to that,” McCain told an Arizona-based radio show. “I know it came up in my race because I was born in Panama, but I was born in the Canal Zone which is a territory. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory when he ran in 1964.”
Republican front-runner Donald Trump and others have raised similar questions about Cruz, who is moving up in GOP polls and leads in Iowa.

In his radio interview, McCain said his situation was different because he was born on a U.S. military base.
“That’s different from being born on foreign soil, so I think there is a question," McCain said. "I am not a constitutional scholar on that, but I think it’s worth looking into. I don’t think it’s illegitimate to look into it.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...07/ted-cruz-john-mccain-citizenship/78404164/
 
McCain unsure whether Cruz is eligible for presidency

David Jackson, USA TODAY 10:04 a.m. EST January 7, 2016

“I don’t know the answer to that,” McCain told an Arizona-based radio show. “I know it came up in my race because I was born in Panama, but I was born in the Canal Zone which is a territory. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory when he ran in 1964.”
Republican front-runner Donald Trump and others have raised similar questions about Cruz, who is moving up in GOP polls and leads in Iowa.

In his radio interview, McCain said his situation was different because he was born on a U.S. military base.
“That’s different from being born on foreign soil, so I think there is a question," McCain said. "I am not a constitutional scholar on that, but I think it’s worth looking into. I don’t think it’s illegitimate to look into it.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...07/ted-cruz-john-mccain-citizenship/78404164/

I did think it was interesting that all the examples Cruz mentioned were people who never were POTUS.
 
Weren't you implying that having dual citizenship would legally disqualify Cruz from being President because of the natural born citizen clause?

He has 2 things against him; born on foreign soil AND the dual citizenship. Although it is a good point that maybe even natural born citizens with dual citizenship should be denied if they ever took advantage of or did not immediately rescind the 2nd citizenship when they turned 18.
 
McCain unsure whether Cruz is eligible for presidency

This is where it is gonna hurt Rafael. Back when McCain ran, he immediately had a senate resolution passed that was bipartisan that said he was eligible. It might not have been a legally valid document; but it shows what happens when you make friends and it shutdown most criticism. Mr. 2-face Cruz has done nothing but make enemies; I don't see a similar senate resolution being passed in his favor.
 
Although it is a good point that maybe even natural born citizens with dual citizenship should be denied if they ever took advantage of or did not immediately rescind the 2nd citizenship when they turned 18.

That's quite different from saying that, according to the law as it is right now, it would be illegal for someone with dual citizenship to be President.

Honestly though, I'm glad Trump is doing this, and I hope it picks up traction.

Maybe I should play along for purely pragmatic reasons.
 
So Arnold Schwarzenegger could never be POTUS?
Yup, or Canadian-born Ted Cruz either.
(meaningless Senate resolutions have no weight in re-writing the constitution either)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top