Topic Tuesday #57 2013/08/20 - "Running for POTUS"
In the news: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is gearing up to take a 2016 run at the big chair. He has been mired in some interesting controversy that I found amusing, and then infuriating. It's all down to the interpretation of "Natural Born Citizen".Requirements to be eligible to be the President of the Untied States of America (POTUS):
35 Years or Older.Have been a permanent resident of the United States of America for at least 14 years
Must not have served more than one previous term as president.
Must not have been impeached by the Senate.
Must not have participated in a rebellion against the United States
Must be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
This is usually interpreted to mean you have to have been born in the USA, which is not what it legally takes to be a "natural born" citizen.
* The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". This act was superseded by:
* The Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not mention the phrase natural born citizen. The Act of 1795 was superseded by:
* The Naturalization Act of 1798. This act was repealed in 1802 by:
* The Naturalization Law of 1802. A number of minor revisions were introduced, but these merely altered or clarified details of evidence and certification without changing the basic nature of the admission procedure. The most important of these revisions occurred in 1855, when citizenship was automatically granted to alien wives of U.S. citizens (10 Stat. 604), and in 1870, when the naturalization process was opened to persons of African descent (16 Stat. 256).
To the nature of Texas Senator Cruz, who was born outside the United States to a Canadian father and American mother, Section 4 is pertinent.
*SEC 4 And be it further enacted that the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States Provided also that no person heretofore proscribed by any state or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribe.
So yeah... That's muddy. Now we have to check with what has really already been decided.
"Qualifications for President and the 'Natural Born' Citizenship Eligibility Requirement". Congressional Research Service report. Federation of American Scientists. November 14, 2011. p. 2. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
"In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens 'at birth' or 'by birth,' and are 'natural born,' as opposed to 'naturalized,' U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President."
"Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century,
there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."
And there it is. "by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents." In Ted Cruz's case, there are two reasons that he can be harassed. He was one of the very vocal "birthers" during the Obama campaigns making him a little hypocritical. And by not knowing this in the first place and getting it figured out ahead of time. Letting the media run your campaign is a bad idea. They asked for his birth certificate as a joke, poking at him for the "birther" connection. He has been caught with a Canadian maple leaf on his under-roos with this one and is now being forced to renounce his Canadian dual citizenship, but is unfamiliar with the paperwork, and stumbling around blind in a room full of cameras. There is only one other little detail that could keep this ball in the air. There is a misogynistic bend to this act, that should be summarily ignored. The jus sanguinis, law of decent, is traditionally on the male side, and his father was the Canadian. So if you don't pay attention to his mother being a U.S. Citizen, then yes... you still have an argument to make, albeit a horrible one for someone in the 21st century. But given that he has dual citizenship, that argument should be stuffed.
In short, Yes, he can run. Yes he can hold the office if he wins. Will he be able to win? Well, we shall see in 2016.