Ted Cruz Is a US Citizen, But Not a "Natural Born" US Citizen
Whether or not the Constitution should make "natural born" citizenship derivable from either father or mother, it has not been amended to do so and Congress is not empowered to amend the presidential qualifications by itself.
Raising or lowering the minimum age for president requires a constitutional amendment, not a mere act of Congress.
Likewise, the definition of "natural born Citizen" as understood when the
Constitution was enacted should be respected until the Constitution is amended and not disregarded or "redefined" by Congress and/or the courts.
In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. It provided in part that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Plainly, that provision encompassed natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.
It did not define "natural born Citizen" as used in the Constitution as a presidential qualification.
Before May 24, 1934, United States citizenship could be transmitted to children born abroad by United States citizen only by a father, and only if the father "resided" in the United States prior to his
child's birth. On that date, United States citizen mothers prospectively obtained equal status with respect to transmitting United States citizenship, but children born before May 24, 1934 to a United States citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire United States citizenship. See Henry L. Chang's "U.S. Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad" (http://americanlaw.com/citabrd.html).
The professed purpose of their article was to rebut "spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad."
In specifically declaring Cruz constitutional eligible to be President, they stated:
"...at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a 'natural born Citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a 'natural born Citizen' even under the Naturalization Act of 1790."
That's wrong on both "happenstance" and the 1790 Naturalization Act enabling non-United States citizen fathers transmitting United States citizenship (regardless of residence).
"Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970, at Foothills Provincial General Hospitalin Calgary, Alberta,Canada, to parents Eleanor Elizabeth (Darragh) Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz. At the time of his birth, Cruz's parents had lived in Calgary for three years and were working in the oil business as owners of a seismic-data processing firm for oil drilling.... The family lived in Calgary's St. Andrews Heights neighborhood and later the affluent Elbow Park neighborhood until his father suddenly abandoned the family and moved to Texas in 1974. Cruz and his mother moved into a townhouse complex in the southeast suburbs of Calgary when later in 1974 Cruz's father, who had joined a Baptist Bible study, reconciled with Cruz's mother and the family relocated to Houston."
Katyal and Clement based their "no question" conclusion in part on a pertinent constitutional commentary by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.
"As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to 'cut off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.'"
To be sure, that is true.
But Katyal and Clement assured all as follows:
"...the relevant materials clearly indicate that a 'natural born Citizen' means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase'natural born Citizen' includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent."
That's not so.
In 1790 the First Congress provided 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . ."
Citizenship of a baby was transmittable by the baby's father, but not by the mother, and Cruz's father did not become a United States citizen until long after Cruz was born.
Kaytal and Clement stated: "The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the
moment of birth, and thus are 'natural born Citizens.'"
That's not true.
Whether or not the Constitution should make "natural born" citizenship for presidential qualification purposes derivable from either father or mother, it has not been amended to do so and Congress is not empowered to amend the presidential qualifications by itself.
An originalist like Cruz should not be trying to circumvent the Constitution.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.