January 8, 2016

A Slate writer proclaims Trump's aspersions on Cruz's natural-born citizenship "sort of brilliant."

Cruz, born in Canada, was a citizen at birth because his mother was an American citizen, and there isn't going be to a court case interpreting the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution to require anything more than that. If Cruz is a good-enough natural-born citizen, the question whether Obama was born in Kenya should never even have come up, because Obama's mother was an American citizen. Who cares where she was? Should pregnant women refrain from international travel lest they disqualify their offspring from the presidency?

But voters can take whatever they like into account. Maybe a candidate doesn't seem American enough to be trusted with the presidency. That would have been the better argument with Obama, who had a foreign father and step-father and spent much of his early years in Indonesia. And — think about it — Hawaii is awfully disconnected from the great bulk of America. And then he staged a big rally in Berlin. One might say that the "natural born citizen" clause — whatever it means technically — embodies a principle that the President needs to be very fundamentally American, utterly disconnected from any foreign power. Use that principle to leverage political arguments. If you can.

That's what I think. Now, here's the Slate article, by Jim Newell, "Does Ted Cruz Have a 'Birther' Problem?/Why Donald Trump’s new attack on the Texas senator is pitch perfect."
[Trump] is not running around saying There’s no way that Cruz is eligible!, which is usually how he rolls. He is saying that Cruz has a responsibility to the party to clear himself through the courts in the event he wins the nomination. “How do you run against the Democrat, whoever it may be,” Trump said on CNN Wednesday, “and you have this hanging over your head if they bring a lawsuit?”...

Many Republican primary voters, in large part because of Cruz and Trump’s rhetoric this campaign, are inclined to pick up on and feel unnerved by even the smallest whiffs of foreignness.... The fear of something, however improbable, happening to the Republican nominee ahead of the general election and “handing” the race to Clinton is a nagging one....

When Trump started talking about Cruz’s birth this week, he was not universally condemned, as he usually is when he says something strange. There’s been a surprisingly broad range of actors fanning Trump’s statement. Sen. Rand Paul.... Sen. John “Panama” McCain, who hates every atom in Cruz’s body... Ann Coulter.... And don’t expect Democrats to get in the way of Republican “birthers” devouring themselves, either.....

59 comments:

Fernandinande said...

Trump as a Pool Shark Hustling the Media
Commenter Millennial Falcon notes:

"Bum hunting is the media’s preferred tactic of fighting the culture war too: Westboro Baptist, that Starbucks cup controversy guy, Dylann Roof, etc.

That’s one of the funner angles on Trump. He walks, talks and acts like a bum, which draws the media to him like piranhas every time he wades into the pool, but he beats them every time. But they are so convinced that he’s a bum that they keep on coming after him. He’s the perfect hustler."


tim maguire said...

I love how so many who should know better weigh in on the birther question as though it were a matter of personal opinion. "Natural born" is not defined in the constitution but it is defined in law. It mattered whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii because of the rules in place at that time. If the rules were the same when Cruz was born in Canada, then he is a natural born American (because of the different situations of the parents).

The thing that stuck in my craw then and now is that there is no way to enforce a constitutional requirement--it was impossible for the Obama birthers to get their day in court, and now it's going to be an issue in most campaigns because there is far more international travel going on.

tim in vermont said...

"The smallest whiff of foreigness" LOL, you mean like being educated in an Indonesian Madrasah? Not being 100% sure there are 50 states? Saying "It's good to be in New Pennsylvania"? The *smallest* whiff!

These guys actually drink their own Kool-Aid

David Begley said...

This is just more of Trump in full WWE mode.

Donald " The Businessman" Trump v. Ted "The Mad Canadian" Cruz.

Reprehensible.

garage mahal said...

"Hawaii is awfully disconnected from the great bulk of America"

Lucky for them.

BDNYC said...

Althouse, do you know for a fact that the citizenship laws were the same when Cruz and Obama were born? Is it true that being born abroad in 1961 to an American citizen automatically gave you citizenship?

Jack Wayne said...

Cue Mick.

CachorroQuente said...

Trump says that Cruz should seek a declaratory judgement. Is that even possible in a situation like this where there is no actual dispute with anybody?

It's my understanding (and Althouse should be able to opine on this) that the Supreme Court does not issue declaratory judgements. But, the Supreme Court is the only court which has the authority to decide such a question as this. Isn't it true that District Court decisions have no value as precedent outside the district (and, maybe none within)? Even an appellate decision has no value as binding precedent outside the circuit, right? So, what court is it that Trump, and his notoriously incompetent legal counsel, thinks that Cruz should go to to garner his declaratory judgement to settle the question -- to the extent that there is an actual question in the mind of anyone not named Mick? What a bunch of frought bullshit.

John said...

If Cruz is elected, he will be the first president ever born outside of the US. He will be only the second major candidate born outside of the US.

Regardless of what the meaning of "natural born" is, regardless of whether it means constitutional citizenship is required or whether statutory citizenship is OK, that is still a Hell of a thing.

Over 2 centuries of precedent, pfft! gone. Out the window.

FDR showed us the horrors of that when he broke the 2 term precedent.

We wound up having to add an amendment to the Constitution.

John Henry

John said...

Regardless of where one falls on the natural born issue, Trump raises an excellent point. I think, he does, anyway. Perhaps Ann can clarify as a lawyer/professor.

If elected, could someone conceivably have standing to sue that Cruz is not qualified?

If so, regardless of the final outcome, we would wind up with a muddle on our hands while it worked its way through the courts.

Then, if in 2018, they ruled that he was not eligible, what happens?

Trump says that Cruz should seek a declaratory judgement from the Supreme Court on this issue to prevent this. As a legal question, is that even possible? Could Cruz go to the Supremes and ask them to rule preemptively?

I know it would be unusual, probably unprecedented, but is it legally possible? If so, it would solve the problem once and for all.

John Henry

MountainMan said...

Cruz has renounced his Canadian citizenship. Did Obama ever renounce being a subject of the Crown? Since his father was Kenyan, and at the time Kenya was still a British colony, I believe under British law he inherited British citizenship as well at the time of his birth. I don't recall anywhere he ever renounced it.

I agree with Prof. Althouse's comments about the cultural aspects of being an American with respect to a presidential candidate. That is really more important than the birth issue. One of my biggest arguments I tried to use with young employees and acquaintances I knew who supported Obama in both elections was that he was not a typical American and in fact had lived pretty much in an anti-American culture his entire life. We are seeing the downside of that now and I predicted it all along. I would never have voted for him anyway because of his policy positions but I think this is something that should always be considered, especially with the multi-cultural society we have become, the growth of international travel, and the potential likelihood in the future of more politicians and presidential aspirants of mixed cultures and nationalities.

And despite her excellent paragraph on the subject, she still voted for him.

Tank said...

[Trump] is not running around saying There’s no way that Cruz is eligible!, which is usually how he rolls. He is saying that Cruz has a responsibility to the party to clear himself through the courts in the event he wins the nomination.

Tank said that a long time ago. And he should.

===================================================

And is Althouse's opinion correct. What if Cruz' Mom had moved to ... oh, let's say Iran ... five years before he was born, and then she gave birth, and then one year later she renounced her American citizenship, and Cruz was an Iranian citizen by virtue of being born there (who knows?), would he still be constitutionally a natural born citizen based solely on his Mom being a citizen when he was born? Is that what the founders intended this to mean? I don't know. Does not seem likely.

Sebastian said...

"Many Republican primary voters, in large part because of Cruz and Trump’s rhetoric this campaign, are inclined to pick up on and feel unnerved by even the smallest whiffs of foreignness." Tim beat me to it, but it's still funny to be told by Prog hacks what "unnerves" "many Republican voters" due to "Cruz and Trump's rhetoric."

John said...

Just to be clear:

There is no question in my mind that Cruz is/was a citizen at birth under the then existing statutes.

There is no question in my mind that he is not a citizen under the 14th Amendment which requires one to be born in the United States.

This constitutional/statutory distinction makes no difference at all regarding anyone's rights as a citizen. It may, or may not, make a difference as to whether one is "natural born" and the only difference that makes is whether one is eligible to the presidency.

John Henry

dbp said...

" If Cruz is a good-enough natural-born citizen, the question whether Obama was born in Kenya should never even have come up, because Obama's mother was an American citizen. Who cares where she was? "

No. not entirely:

"Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child."

"Obama was born before 1986 to married parents, and his father was an alien. Thus if it were an overseas birth, his mother would have to have lived in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14 in order for her child to be a natural-born American. Mrs. Obama was only 18 when Barack was born, so she had not even lived 5 years after age 14."

Obama was born in Hawaii but it would have mattered had he been born outside the USA.

From WSJ

traditionalguy said...

Mick is an absolutist. Under his law only a American Father and American mother can births US President.

What Cruz has to deal with is a Cuban father who had successfully applied to convert to Canadian married to an American mother who
Had also successfully applied to convert to Canadian.

The issue is whether a mother having at best a dual Canadian-American Citizenship meets the exception for a baby born In a foreign country.

Good luck in court Ted, and put some ice on that.

John said...

BTW: McCain had the same problem. For purposes of citizenship "The United States" has long (50-75 years at least) been defined as the states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, USVI and Guam. Marianas was added 15-20 years ago. Anyone born in any of these is automatically a US citizen, regardless of parentage, under the 14th Amendment.

The Panama Canal Zone, where McCain was born has never been considered part of "The United States" for citizenship purposes. Anyone born in the zone gets statutory citizenship depending on parental citizenship.

Fun trivia fact: Persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are "Nationals but not citizens" of the US. Though I suppose that someone born there of citizen parents would get citizenship that way.

John Henry

mccullough said...

Statutes can't define the Constitution. That said, the laws passed just after the Constitution was adopted are given more weight as to what the Constitution means because that Congress was most familiar with what the understanding of a constitutional provision was. The naturalization act of 1790 says that children of US citizens born outside the US are citizens. It doesn't say if both parents have to be US citizens. Since it doesn't say, having one parent citizen is probably enough under the statute. And since the statute was passed just after the constitution was adopted, it's a good argument to say that this is all the Constituion requires.

That said, Althouse point is right. It's up to voters to decide since no court is going to get involved. Cruz was a dual citizen of the US and Canada whose father was a Cuban refugee who moved from the US to Canada for awhile. He's also a dual Ivy leaguer. So he's not much of an American



John said...

One more question if anyone knows:

Have we ever had a president who has lived a major portion of their life outside of the US?

Perhaps Obama, with his 8 years in Indonesia, though perhaps not. Depends on how we define "major" I guess.

Any others?

John Henry

Writ Small said...

It is pretty genius by Trump, I agree.

Nate Silver's 538 had a piece about how many Trump supporters are "misinformed" rather than "uninformed". That is, it isn't that they don't know things, it's that what they "know" is often wrong. Related, Meet the Press showed multiple interviews with fans at a Trump rally who, when told that a radical Islamic video had been released using Trump (after, not before Hillary's claim), simply dismissed it as untrue. The Frank Luntz panel with Trump voters also demonstrated this reality-avoiding trait.

Trump learned that a frontal attack on Cruz resulted in pushback from Limbaugh and like-minded talk radio folk. Trump needs Rush to at least not be outwardly hostile to him. An indirect, conspiratorial sliming of Cruz is a sort of perfect attack. It's not enough to cause Rush to attack Trump, and moderate Republicans will dismiss it, but those Republicans sympathetic to both Trump and Cruz will start to question Cruz.

Even John McCain is having fun bashing Cruz with Trump's insinuation. Trump's ability to play the political game skillfully yet retain an image as outside of politics with his fans is impressive to behold.

John said...

Just by way of no harm:

Huma Abedin is definitely eligible to be president.

That would be cool wouldn't it. A president whose mother is a hostage (of sorts) in Saudi Arabia.

John Henry

CachorroQuente said...

"Trump says that Cruz should seek a declaratory judgement from the Supreme Court on this issue to prevent this. As a legal question, is that even possible? Could Cruz go to the Supremes and ask them to rule preemptively?"

Probably, Cruz can't go to the Supreme Court.

1. They don't issue declaratory judgements (that's my understanding).

2. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction. The only way to get the question to the SC is on appeal.

Rumpletweezer said...

The whole point of having a natural born citizen as President is because the President should have an interest in the well-being of the country and a love for the country. I think Ted Cruze has those qualities. I don't think the current office-holder does.

eric said...

The citizenship laws are more complicated than they appear and differ depending on the hear you were born. They also differ depending on whether or not your mother is married at the time of your birth.

The law was actually the same from 1952 through 1986 (assuming they were both born to parents in wedlock). Obama was born in 1961 and Cruz was born in 1970. Therefore, they are both covered by the same law.

Here are the requirements for Obama and Cruz to have received Citizen ship at birth.

1) If only one parent is a US Citizen, that parent was physically present in the United States or OLP (Outlying possession) for 10 hears, at least five of those after the age of 14.

I believe Ann Dunham was 18 when Obama was born. Therefore, if he had been born outside the US, he would not have been a US Citizen because she wouldn't have met the US Citizen residency requirements prior to his birth. It's moot, but means its relevant in discussing where Obama was born.

Ted Cruz also only had one USC parent. Therefore, his mom must meet the same requirements, unless she wasn't married at the time of his birth?

If his mom didn't meet the residency requirements, or wasn't married, it changes things.

But these matters aren't as cut and dry as people make them out to be.

Static Ping said...

Do keep in mind that Obama's birther phenomenon was self-inflicted. One of his representatives for one of his books declared him to be Kenyan, and my suspicion is that Obama himself claimed as such when it served his purposes, like college admissions. He could have easily cleared this up a long time ago, save for the conspiracy theorists for which falsification is impossible, but I suspect that the truth would be embarrassing and he felt that the birthers could be used to his advantage. He is probably correct about the latter.

As I understand it, the natural born citizen clause was intended to prevent foreign agents from getting control of the Presidency so as to avoid King George or whomever placing a puppet in the position. It was a real concern but an imperfect solution. Presumably, if some foreign power wanted a puppet President, they could have found someone natural born that would have done their bidding. I suppose that it did reduce the pool of candidates for the role significantly, especially at the time, as patriotism does have sway even on scoundrels and natural born Americans birthed outside the country would be minimal. I suspect that it has significantly less impact today given the more international nature of the world and the waning of patriotism among elites.

n.n said...

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on an unambiguous criteria for "natural born" that does not cede control of this nation to an a foreign army or alien invasion.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...That would have been the better argument with Obama, who had a foreign father and step-father and spent much of his early years in Indonesia

Right, and that was a line of attack that was tried several times, but was beaten back each time with cries of RACSIT!, Professor. The attack was that candidate Obama was foreign-seeming, that he didn't relate to America as a country in the same way most Americans do, etc. That argument was quickly and definitively labeled "othering" and racist, and thus any use of it was deemed "ugly."

Othering a Republican, though nothing racist about that--Jorge Ramos is free to call both Cruz and Rubio race traitors, that sort of thing, because apparently if you're on the Left you can't be a racist. I mean, obviously.

mikeski said...

I find it hard to believe that this kerfluffle is something that wasn't anticipated by Cruz and his campaign staff.

cubanbob said...

After Obama not renouncing dual or triple citizenship that ship has sailed. At least Cruz has renounced his Canadian citizenship which is more than can be said for Obama.
Trump's concern trolling is interesting in what it signals: that at the moment he considers Cruz to be his real rival for the nomination but he also understands he has to be subtle less he antagonize the Conservative base that supports Cruz. In the meantime things are starting to look ugly for Hillary, a criminal investigation doesn't enhance a candidate's prospects and the only Plan B the Democrats have is Creepy Old Uncle Joe.

wendybar said...

Ann Coulter believed Ted Cruz was eligible to be President in 2013, before she decided to go all in with Trump....http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/08/coulter-its-absolutely-false-that-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-n2101247

mccullough said...

What does Ted Cruz love about America? He was a debater not a baseball player growing up.

Why go to Princeton instead of the University of Texas? Why go to Harvard law School instead of the University of Texas?

Cruz is an elitist. That's incompatible with a love of America. In the 2000 campaign, W made fun of Yale and distanced himself from elitism. He basically said his parents forced him to go to Andover and Yale and that he just wanted to play baseball and go to the Univeristy of Texas like his friends.

Obama at least played basketball growing up and likes golf, smoked some blunts and goofed off. The high school Obama was a good American.

PDM said...

Y'all are overthinking the Declaratory Judgment thing. It seems to me that if Cruz cared to have a federal court issue such a judgment, and if he could convince a court in a jurisdiction in which an actual case or controversy related to the issue lies to take the matter under consideration (Texas, perhaps? Iowa? New Hampshire?), then that court's ruling would be all he needs to say, "a federal court has adjudicated the issue, and in my favor. No other court has ruled in any other way. Shut up about it."

If someone else can convince some other federal court that the same case or controversy lies in some other jurisdiction, then maybe that court comes up with a different opinion, which (maybe) has an effect on his ability to get on the ballot in that State, if the dec action is followed by an injunction.

I'm not saying any of that should happen, but I'm just not following all the hand-wringing about whether or how the Supreme Court would hear the issue. Maybe it gets there through the appeals process, and split opinions in circuits, but even then, I'm not sure they'd touch it.

Unknown said...

Answering John Henry, who asked if there has ever been a U.S. president who lived a major portion of their life outside the U.S.-- yes, quite a few: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Andrew Jackson were all grown-ups in 1789, and had therefore lived a major portion of their lives in a colony that was politically and even culturally very different from the new nation. That's the first seven presidents. Of the next five--Martin Van Buren, #8, Wm. H. Harrison, #9, and Zachary Taylor, #12, were ages 7, 16, and 5, in 1789. John Tyler, #10, James Polk, #11, and James Buchanan, #15, were all born in the 18th century. There is a good argument that Abraham Lincoln was the first president to be a genuine political and cultural "American"--and even he grew up a in Indiana, which wasn't a state until 1816. The counter-argument would have to posit that there was no difference between growing up in a British subject colony, or in a territory, vs. in an established U.S. State, for purposes of being "American" in the sense John Henry seems to intend it.

mccullough said...

No court wood ever hear a case like this. The qualifications for president are set forth in Article II and the Electors vote for the President. It is up to each Elector not a court, to determine if the person they vote for to be President meets the qualifications. It doesn't say the Supreme Court or some inferior court that Congress may decide to create. If the majority of Electors can't agree on who should be president, then the House decides.

Since each state, and DC, allows their citizens to choose the slate of electors from their state by casting a ballot for a named candidate, then it is up to each voter to decide (if they know, which surely a majority don't) if the candidate they vote for meets the Constitutional qualifications.

Again, no court is going to resolve an issue that the Constitutiion specifically assigns responsibility to another branch or entity to decide.

Birkel said...

How McCain lost Althouse, the reckoning.

poker1one said...

Let me pick up Mick's cudgel and ask: If there is little meaning to the term, "natural born citizen," why did the framers include that phrase in the qualifications for the president but nowhere else in the document?

surfed said...

Hawaii - the most racist place in America. Overtly and proudly so. "Disconnected" doesn't do the place justice.

CWJ said...

poker1one,

Europe had a history of "outside hires" for the position of monarch when either neccesity or opportunism required it. For example, George III's family had been brought in from Hannover. The Tudors before them had ultimately been Dutch, I believe. I suspect the framer's had this history in mind when setting the requirements for the CEO. No one wanted to risk some faction lobbying Prince Bob of Baddabing-Baddaboom to come in and run for President.

Ann Althouse said...

"Cruz has renounced his Canadian citizenship. Did Obama ever renounce being a subject of the Crown? Since his father was Kenyan, and at the time Kenya was still a British colony, I believe under British law he inherited British citizenship as well at the time of his birth. I don't recall anywhere he ever renounced it."

Read the Harvar Law Rev. article. It explains the Kenyan law under which Obama lost his citizenship at the age of 23. He would have had to renounce his U.S. citizenship to keep it.

Ann Althouse said...

Harvard

Ann Althouse said...

"Let me pick up Mick's cudgel and ask: If there is little meaning to the term, "natural born citizen," why did the framers include that phrase in the qualifications for the president but nowhere else in the document?"

How little is little?

The accepted meanig seems to be that you were at birth a citizen and no added process was required to become a citizen. That's something.

mccullough said...

Soon, Trump will start calling Cruz by his first name, Rafael

khematite said...

John wrote:
One more question if anyone knows:
Have we ever had a president who has lived a major portion of their life outside of the US
Perhaps Obama, with his 8 years in Indonesia, though perhaps not. Depends on how we define "major" I guess.
Any others?


Herbert Hoover spent about five of his adult years (1897-1901) in China and in Australia. He even lived through the Boxer Rebellion. Hoover then spent several years in Europe, first working with his engineering firm and then supervising relief efforts in Europe during and after World War I. Both of his children were born in London during that time.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

McCullough, maybe he's saving that for the debate. Right near the end.

Either way it would be an easy and effective second act to this line of attack.

Unknown said...

The "natural born citizen clause likely was put there to prevent importation of foreign leaders as President. In England, James I was imported from Scotland to be king, William III from the Netherlands, and George I from Hanover. George never learned to speak English. The Founders didn't contemplate parties or popular elections, and likely were safguarding agianst inviting a Lafayette or Kosciuszko, to take citizenship and the presidency simultaneously.

readering said...

Trump reminds me of George Smathers running for incumbent Pepper's Florida Senate seat and supposedly saying things like, "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, he has a brother who is a known homo sapiens, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy."

I thought the most amazing part of Trump's Face the Nation Interview was his answers to questions about questioning Cruz's religion on the grounds that few Cubans are evangelicals, while he, Trump, is a Presbyterian, which is sort of like an Evangelical. (Yet Ann thought Trump was excellent in this interview.)

el polacko said...

trump never brought up the issue. he was responding to a reporter's question as to whether cruz's citizenship is a problem for him. trump responded that it could very well become an issue and suggested that cruz would do well to get out ahead of the issue. today, cruz produced birth certificate evidence of his mother's citizenship. once again, it looks like cruz is taking his cues from trump.

Mick said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
""Let me pick up Mick's cudgel and ask: If there is little meaning to the term, "natural born citizen," why did the framers include that phrase in the qualifications for the president but nowhere else in the document?"

How little is little?

The accepted meanig seems to be that you were at birth a citizen and no added process was required to become a citizen. That's something".


Nonsense "law prof"

OK let me cue you all in. The question with Cruz and Rubio is solvable with logic alone. No "definition: of "natural born citizen" is needed to determine that Rubio and Cruz are not eligible.

1) A2S1C5 has never been amended.

2) Natural born citizens have always been citizens at the time they were born.

3) Ted Cruz would have been considered an alien at birth if born in the same circumstance (US citizen mother, foreign father, born in Canada) in 1933.

4) Therefore Ted Cruz is only considered a "citizen at birth" today because of US naturalization law (8 US Code 1401(g)).

5) Ergo Cruz is naturalized, not natural born, and not eligible.

6) Marco Rubio would have been considered an alien at birth in 1802, if born to 2 resident alien parents in America, according to the NA 1802 S. 4, and would have been naturalized by the naturalization of his parents (at age 4). Therefore Rubio is only considered a citizen at birth today by US naturalization law (8 US Code 1401(a)).

7) Ergo Marco Rubio is naturalized, not natural born, and not eligible

That may torque some of your little brains, but think about it awhile, and let it sink in. It really is that easy.

What do they teach in that "law prof" Constitutional law class?

This was filed in Ft, Lauderdale on Dec 15, 2015

https://www.scribd.com/doc/293623437/Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgment-and-Injunction-50

Mick said...

Althouse said,

"Read the Harvar Law Rev. article. It explains the Kenyan law under which Obama lost his citizenship at the age of 23. He would have had to renounce his U.S. citizenship to keep it".


1) The Harvard Law Review article is NOT LAW.

2) It was written by Obama's (Usurper) Solicitor General, Katyal.

3) It was written to protect the Usurper Obama and is total Bullshit.

4) the Naturalization Act 1790 did not "define" natural born Citizen. It said that the children of US citizens born abroad "shall be CONSIDERED AS natural born citizens". It did not say that they SHALL BE natural born citizens. It meant that the children of citizens born abroad shall be ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT (the only reason for the distinction of natural born Citizen), not that they are actual natural born citizens. (Probably for the benefit of early American Diplomats.)

5) that distinction was repealed by the NA 1795

6) Again, the Harvard Law Review Article by Katyal, and referenced by the "law prof" is total BS, and meant to protect the Usurper Obama.

7) Obama has never, and cannot , renounce his British subjectship (there is no right in British Common Law to do that). His Kenyan citizenship expired in 1983.

8) Barack Obama is a British subject


9) Hope you learned something "law prof" (or maybe not, you did vote for the Usurper twice)


10) Filed and served in Ft. Lauderdale.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/293623437/Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgment-and-Injunction-50



Mick said...

dbp said...
"" If Cruz is a good-enough natural-born citizen, the question whether Obama was born in Kenya should never even have come up, because Obama's mother was an American citizen. Who cares where she was? "

No. not entirely:

"Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.""



Nonsense, the term "natural born citizen" cannot be defined by US naturalization law. Otherwise A2S1C5 could be continually amended at will by additions to the "citizen at birth" statutes (8 US Code 1401).

"Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the "common law" (law of nations, part of the common law of the US), See 88 US 162, 167 (1875) and also 169 US 649, 655, 680 (1898), and is not found in the Constitution (therefore it is not found in the 14A)

Only a few terms are actually "defined" within the Constitution, one term that is defined is "treason".

Logic kills the lie.

Mick said...

MountainMan said...
"Cruz has renounced his Canadian citizenship. Did Obama ever renounce being a subject of the Crown? Since his father was Kenyan, and at the time Kenya was still a British colony, I believe under British law he inherited British citizenship as well at the time of his birth. I don't recall anywhere he ever renounced it".

You can't renounce British subjectship. Obama is still a British subject.

Mick said...

I was golfing today. Sorry I missed this post! Did anyone miss me?

Amadeus 48 said...

My theory about the secrecy of Obama's college records has always been that he claimed to be Indonesian or Kenyan for purposes of gaining an admission advantage or a financial grant. Also, it is surprising that his first choice was Occidental if his SAT was any good at all. Somebody knows but nobody is talking.

grackle said...

Meet the Press showed multiple interviews with fans at a Trump rally who, when told that a radical Islamic video had been released using Trump (after, not before Hillary's claim), simply dismissed it as untrue.

Meaningless. Readers, this is a variation of the “man on the street” interviews that local news organizations use to fill time when there is a slow news cycle in their local areas of coverage. Stick to scientific polling if the goal is to find out what Trump supporters believe. On the other hand, if the goal is to discredit Trump supporters then find some individuals that confirm your bias and interview them, “man on the street” style. Try to convince me that Meet the Press isn’t biased.

Cautionary: Although scientific polling is better than man on the street interviews, even the polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Over the years these polls have proven to be wrong a significant amount of instances. Below is a URL to an article that explains one recent example conducted by Gallup:

http://tinyurl.com/l9s4znp

Mazo Jeff said...

Well, if a person is born in a country different from the parents' citizenship and is then a citizen of his parents' country, why does a child born in the US of, say, Mexican parents become a US citizen not a Mexican citizen?

Mazo Jeff said...

Well, if a person is born in a country different from the parents' citizenship and is then a citizen of his parents' country, why does a child born in the US of, say, Mexican parents become a US citizen not a Mexican citizen? Because the Constitution specifically says so. So to be consistent, would it be logical that "a natural born citizen" would mean born in the US?

John said...


Blogger Mazo Jeff said...

Well, if a person is born in a country different from the parents' citizenship and is then a citizen of his parents' country, why does a child born in the US of, say, Mexican parents become a US citizen not a Mexican citizen? Because the Constitution specifically says so. So to be consistent, would it be logical that "a natural born citizen" would mean born in the US?

Some countries, like the US make it extremely hard to give up citizenship. Some, I think Mexico is one, make it impossible with no means of renouncing citizenship. A baby born to Mexican citizen parents in the US will be a natural born US citizen (14A) but will also be a citizen of Mexico whether they want to be or not. The US is OK with dual citizenship in those cases but frowns on it in other cases.

It is also pretty near impossible, perhaps completely impossible, for the US govt to revoke citizenship of a natural born citizen and even of naturalized citizens except in case of fraud.

For example, you have the case of Nishakawa, born of Japanese parents in the US and thus a dual citizen. He went to Japan to study in the 30s and got drafted into the Japanese army during WWII. After the war he tried to come back to California and found that his citizenship had been revoked.

The Supreme Court held that since he had had no intention of giving up his citizenship, it could not be revoked.

Perez was US born of Mexican parents. He went through the legal process of giving up his US citizenship so he could study free in Mexico. Later, he decided he had not meant to give it up. The Supremes found that the govt had not dotted a proverbial i and restored his citizenship.

So even if Cruz' mother had become a Canadian citizen, which it appears she did not, unless she went to a US embassy, went through a whole process, got a statement from Canada that she was a Canadian citizen and what-all, she would probably not have lost her US citizenship and Ted would be a US citizen at birth.

Not "natural born" perhaps, but a citizen at birth.

John Henry

Mick said...

John said,

"Not "natural born" perhaps, but a citizen at birth".

Well, of course, and "citizens at birth" are only so categorized because of US naturalization law---- equals naturalized.

That's the whole point. The Mew World Order crowd is attempting to amend the nbC clause to mean "citizen at birth". If citizen at birth were the standard, then Congress could constantly amend the Constitution by adding to "citizens at birth."

There was no such thing as a child being considered a US Citizen at the time he was born to non citizen parents in the Organic Constitution in 1789. Likewise there was no such thing as a child born of a US citizen mother abroad being a US Citizen at the time the child was born in 1789. Thus they are only considered US Citizens today by naturalization.