I knew yesterday's column on Cruz's "natural born" eligibility would be like poking a hornet's nest. Based on Facebook reactions and nested replies, it was. My first thought: Too bad such animated discussions aren't happening in comments under the article itself, where more people can read them (and for the record, I do not get page view compensation like at Examiner, so I don't have a "click bait" motive).
I also see I was right about two things: We can't count on the controversy just going away and some will react with strongly-vested emotions. One person made a point of telling me he "unfriended" me -- if others did as well and just didn't say anything, I don't know or care. I don't make a point of soliciting "friends." As I use social media as a platform for sharing my links, I only respond to friend requests and group invitations, I don't initiate them -- that way, no one can say I asked to be let in and then started spamming.
A few points I'd like to respond to:
I didn't write the article because I'm in the tank for Trump. I've made no endorsement and have written plenty of things criticizing him over the years. My main interest in him: He's brought issues to the fore that people like me want solutions for and that the establishment squishes would prefer to just throw out a few weasel words over and then stay the course they're on.
I understand there are plenty of people of note who have written documented defenses of Cruz's eligibility and there have been court cases siding with that opinion. I specifically acknowledged that in the article. It's the fact that there are opposing views, many passionate and many citing varied authorities, that makes me believe further court challenges aren't unlikely, depending on how close the race looks to be and if the opposition is desperate enough to play that card. I think to say that a new legal complaint won't happen is as unsupportable as predicting the outcome if more do get filed. Rulings get challenged and overturned all the time -- that's why we have appeals courts.
A seemingly minor point, one I thought about addressing in the article (but didn't want to go too far off into the weeds) -- one person pointed out that the Prince Hashim analogy in the column photo was not accurate because his mother gave up her citizenship. Again, there are conflicting accounts of this, but per Time's Swampland blog, Queen Noor, “says she automatically lost her U.S. citizenship but never renounced it.” Doing so formally would be a requirement to "legally" give it up.
And that brings me to my main point, one I've repeated a few times on this blog: If Cruz has sealed his records, why won't he just unseal them? What's the big secret? That would dispel speculation that his mother renounced her citizenship and more -- or else it would add a whole new level of complexity to the legal arguments. Isn't that something we all deserve to know? Why would any of his defenders who are interested in the truth be against that?
If you'd like to add your two cents, I request you do so under the column itself. And if you don't care what I request and would prefer I just go to hell, take a number and get in line.
8 comments:
I have no idea what documents Cruz is supposed to unseal. I have never seen a list of what those documents are. Maybe somebody could help me out
I commented extensively yesterday on your FB post on this issue. I wasn't swayed. Sen. Cruz is clearly not eligible if one takes the 'originalist' view rather than the 'Living, Breathing Document' view. Personally, I don't know why a discussion is even necessary as the historical record is quite clear.
David:
First, know this . . . even if you DID endorse a candidate in this race, you would never lose my respect. Your bona fides in defense of the second amendment have long ago been made manifest. How anyone one who ostensibly cares about freedom would chose to "unfriend" you is a complete mystery to me.
Second, You pose the question, which I don't doubt is backed up by some source:
"If Cruz has sealed his records, why won't he just unseal them?"
This question mystifies me (and I have read it elsewhere too) because it is well known that Cruz has released his Canadian birth certificate (see below) and also has released the official renunciation of his Canadian citizenship I am posting here, with these words:
"Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter."
So in response to your question, what exactly are the "records" that people want to "unseal" that they claim have been "sealed?" What more do you (or "they") want from Cruz?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-birth-certificate-canada/2670359/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/229039536/Canadian-Renunciation-Letter
Anon @8:56-- go to my column, find the "Per The North American Law Center" link, read the quote under it, click the link and read what the page says -- one doc is apparently the Consular Report of Birth Abroad -- or lack thereof. To reiterate, I'm not saying I "side" with them-- I'm saying Cruz could end all speculation today if he wanted to.
Thank you Phil-- same answer I gave Anon.
Phil, First, Sen. Cruz is a Cuban citizen under Cuban law. Second, he was born in Canada, making him a Canadian Citizen too. His Mother was/is a U.S. Citizen making him a U.S. Citizen Born Abroad. We have not seen his FS 240, which comes from the Department of State when a child is born abroad to citizen parents. My daughter has one from her birth overseas when I was stationed in Greece, where she was born.
Under U.S. law at the time of her birth, after Sen. Cruz, it was necessary for her to be in one of these united States during a certain period, sorry, I no longer remember the specific, so she would not lose her U.S. Citizenship. She met the requirement, plus the law has since been changed. However, the same law would have applied to Sen. Cruz. Since he moved back to the U.S. at 4-years old, he too would maintain his U.S. citizenship.
Therefor, Sen. Cruz is a U.S. Citizen Born Abroad, not a natural born citizen.
To Anon @ 12:42 -
Sorry, but I disagree with your assessment. As one of the posters put it so well yesterday, the lack of an FS 240 form does not disqualify Senator Cruz from being "natural born."
Federal law at 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . .
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
Under federal law, there is no distinction between someone born on U.S. soil and the children of American citizens, even one American citizen parent. Both are "natural born citizens." Again as opined on the thread yesterday, there is no definition of "natural born" in the U.S. Constitution. Reading such external requirements as Vattel, et. al. into the language is to do disservice to originalism on its face.
Also as opined yesterday, Congress has the specific authority to clarify the meaning of such language from their delegated power in Article I, Section 8, clause 18:
"Congress shall have the power . . . to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
There is NOTHING . . . anywhere, in either the constitution or U.S. law that specifies that a "natural born citizen" cannot also be a dual citizen.
Absent anyone coming forward with solid evidence that Cruz's mother renounced her American citizenship (something I would find highly unlikely - for what purpose?), Ted Cruz was born an American citizen under Federal law.
I would also note that Federal law satisfies one of the arguments I raised yesterday - namely that it would make absolutely no sense for the founders to create law (in the constitution)that would prohibit them from traveling outside of the United States with pregnant wives without jeopardizing the full citizenship rights of their offspring. It simply does not make logical sense.
Phil wrote: "Federal law at 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth..."
Many make this mistake, citing a law about how one becomes a U.S. citizen.
Barring the allegation that Sen. Cruz's mother renounced her U.S. citizenship, Sen. Cruz IS a U.S. Citizen. So let's say that is not in dispute for the sake of this discussion.
A U.S. citizen may, or may not be natural born; however, a natural born is always a U.S. citizen, unless they renounce as some have to avoid taxes.
When the final constitution that was ratified had the natural born citizen requirement added to the Presidency requirements after Jay wrote Washington.
So what did we end up with? We ended up with a requirement to be a U.S. citizen for Senators and Representatives and a requirement to be a natural born citizen to become President.
So you see, just being a U.S. citizen does not mean one is qualified to become President. The qualification is to be a natural born citizen.
What I find more interesting is the argument Sen. Cruz is using in his defense against the several ballot access cases that have been filed in various States (NY, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, maybe others I've missed). He argues that the court cannot answer the question of his citizenship eligibility because that is a political question, that they can only rule on the access question (I'm paraphrasing). Why do you think that is?
See http://www.scribd.com/doc/305140398/Amicus-Brief-of-Professor-Einer-Elhauge-FINAL-SIGNED for a more in depth answer.
Post a Comment