Shouldn't the Republican Party Have All Potential Presidential Nominees Demonstrate Presidential Eligibility?
It would be horrific if the Republican presidential nominee is ineligible to be President, so the Republican Party should require proof from potential nominees and make it public (whether or not the Democrat Party does so).
Although generally ignored by the mainstream media (including Fox News), whether Senator Ted Cruz is eligible to be President of the United States depends upon both law and facts and remains an unresolved issue.
Cruz's inability and/or unwillingness to conclusively demonstrate that he is eligible, coupled with rival Donald Trump's references to him as Lyin' Ted, have increased suspicion instead of dispelled it.
I have concluded as a matter of law that since Cruz indisputably was a natural born Canadian, (1) he is not a natural born United States citizen and (2) the United States citizenship of his mother made him eligible to become a naturalized United States citizen.
Since 1934, the United States citizenship of either parent has enabled a child to become a naturalized United States citizen, but it is not sufficient to make that child a natural born United States citizen and therefore eligible to be President of the United States.
My article titled "Judge Masin Cannot Make Ted Cruz a Natural Born US Citizen" (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=160414) prompted email emphasizing the need for presidential aspirants to demonstrate their eligibility to be President of the United States.
Desire is NOT sufficient.
There are age, residence and natural born citizenship requirements prescribed in the Constitution that must be met.
Susan Hughes courteously pointed out that Senator Ted Cruz may not even be a naturalized United States citizen, something I had thought had been demonstrated.
"In the above-referenced article, you state the following: 'Thanks to his mother, Cruz became a United States citizen AT birth under a federal naturalization statute. He is a naturalized United States citizen who was naturalized at birth, but not by birth in the United States.'
"I do not believe this statement is accurate. My own mother had a Canadian birth certificate that stated her father was born in Michigan. However, my mother was never a citizen of the United States--naturalized or natural born. A child born outside the United States to an American parent must file paperwork and claim his/her American citizenship. If Mr. Cruz's mother did not file a Consular Record of Birth Abroad with the American consulate in Alberta at the time of his birth, then Mr. Cruz must have filed the necessary paperwork at a later date. Whatever, there is a process that must be completed.
"To my knowledge, Mr. Cruz has never released the paperwork he filed or that was filed on his behalf by his mother. He has released his Canadian birth certificate. However, a Canadian birth certificate is proof of Canadian citizenship, not American citizenship."
Cruz does not have a United States birth certificate to produce, of course, because he was born in Canada, not the United States.
In a follow up email, Ms. Hughes added:
"As a post script to my original comment, I note the behavior of the American government toward those born in Canada to American parents. If, like my mother, they do not claim their American citizenship by filing the appropriate paperwork, they are never contacted about paying American taxes (and Americans pay taxes worldwide) and never contacted about registering with the Selective Service. The American government does not regard such persons as citizens of the United States, naturalized or natural born. Until Mr. Cruz releases the claim he made or his mother made on his behalf for his American citizenship, we have no proof that he is even a citizen of the United States."
It would be horrific if the Republican presidential nominee is ineligible to be President, so the Republican Party should require proof from potential nominees and make it public (whether or not the Democrat Party does so).
Charon Heuer emailed a detailed statement in support of the proposition that Cruz is neither a natural born United States citizen nor a naturalized United States citizen.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has heard citizenship issues and HAS identified what is a natural-born citizen and what is a 'naturalized citizen'. The U.S. House of Representatives (Both members of the Congress & Senate) also DEFINED 'natural-born' citizen during the 14th Amendment Debates in 1862 and 1866, as well as in an 1872 hearing which determined that American Citizen Dr. Houard who was incarcerated in Spain, did not give up his U.S. Citizenship and was in fact a 'natural-born' citizen of the United States by virtue of being born within the United States to parents (plural not singular) who were Naturalized U.S. Citizens and who owed 'no allegiance' to any other foreign sovereignty.
"The following is a Six-Part History Lesson that I prepared based on actual Congressional Transcripts of Debates/Hearings found in 'The Congressional Globe', Supreme Court Rulings, U.S. and Canadian Citizenship law at the time Cruz was born, statements and interviews by Cruz and his father etc...
"Ted Cruz and his 'naturalized'
citizenship - A Six-Part History Lesson:
"PART 1: THE ACTS OF 1790 AND 1795:
"Cruz keeps citing in his responses the Act of 1790 (long-standing U.S. Law) which did state that children born abroad to U.S. citizens (plural not singular) were considered 'natural-born citizens'. HOWEVER what Cruz is NOT telling American citizens is that the Act of 1790 was REPEALED as in voided, voted out, nullified, NO LONGER LAW and REPLACED with the Act of 1795 which change only grants the 'status of citizen' NOT natural born to children born abroad to U.S.citizens (again plural). Why plural, because at the time these acts were written a woman with U.S. citizenship who had a child born abroad could not confer her U.S. citizenship onto her child - it could ONLY descend through the father. That right did not come into effect until the 1900s and only convey's 'citizen' status 'granted' through naturalization process.
[Note: It went into effect in 1934.]
"Additionally, 'children born abroad' is regulated under the U.S. Immigration and 'Naturalization' Act which does NOT confer natural-born status on those children. U.S. law when Cruz was born in 1970 is the same as it is now, upon the birth of a child born abroad the U.S. parents or parent MUST REPORT the birth to the U.S. Consulate who then will determine the child's citizenship status. If it is determined that the child can hold U.S. Citizenship a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and/or a U.S. Passport would/will be issued to the parents who MUST ALSO RENOUNCE THE child's Canadian (or other country's) citizenship AT THE SAME TIME. Cruz has NOT produced his Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a very important document as it would clearly state that he held U.S. Citizenship, however he would only be a 'naturalized' citizen as it is again, governed under the Immigration & Naturalization Act, which 'grant's citizenship - you are NOT automatically 'born' with it, nor is it descended upon the child from the parent.
"Additionally, Canada did NOT recognize Dual Citizenship. Canadian officials say he is/was (since renounced) a 'natural born Canadian citizen' and nothing else. Since the U.S. did recognize dual citizenship, and per the granting of U.S. citizen status by the Consulate he would also have to, at age 18, go through the Naturalization process, renounce his Canadian Citizenship and take an oath of allegiance to the U.S.
"Part 2: 1971 SUPREME COURT RULING – Children BORN ABROAD ARE NATURALIZED CITIZENS
Per the SUPREME COURT in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), a case where the birth circumstances (child was born to American mother and Foreign Father in Italy) were nearly identical to those of Cruz, their ruling was as follows:
'…Afroyim’s broad interpretation of the scope of the Citizenship Clause finds ample support in the language and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States." Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, Â§ 8. ANYONE ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP SOLELY UNDER THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN."
"'A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.'"
"PART 3: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEFINES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (1866, 1872 and also in 1862):
"The Constitution states the Congress shall only have the power to determine a 'naturalization process' for citizens and who will be classified under the process as U.S. Citizens. In order to determine who would be eligible to become naturalized U.S. Citizens, the House of Representatives had to define what a 'natural born citizen' was.
"In 1862 during the 37th Congress Debate on the 14th Amendment, Ohio Representative John Bingham, known as the Chief Architect and Father of the 14th Amendment stated: 'All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.' (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
"In 1866 during 14th Amendment House debates, Ohio Representative John Bingham, known as the Chief Architect and Father of the 14th Amendment stated: 'I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.' John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
"Additionally in 1872, Bingham again defined 'natural-born citizen' during a House Floor hearing regarding the status of U.S. citizenship of Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain. Here he clearly states 2 requirements for being natural born...born to parents (mother and father) and within the jurisdiction of the United States:
'As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.' (The term 'to-day', as used by Bingham, means 'to date'. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
"Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate: 'Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States...If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.'
"In this Bingham cites 2 factors that declares Dr. Houard to be a 'natural-born citizen': born of citizen 'parents' (plural not singular therefore requiring you to have 2 U.S. Citizen parents for this status) AND born within the 'jurisdiction of the United States.'
"PART 4: WHAT IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF MEAN?
"Senator Jacob Howard, an author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment told us exactly what that meant and defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States. Ready?
"'Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum (issue) in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.'
"PART 5 – Cruz's background as we know it today:
"'Natural-born Citizen' as defined by the very person responsible for the writing of the 14th Amendment, Ohio Representative John Bingham requires 3 things: that you are born within the jurisdiction of the United States, that BOTH parents are citizens of the U.S. either by naturalization OR by being natural born themselves AND that both parents must NOT owe ANY allegiance to ANY FOREIGN country.
"CRUZ was born in Canada and NOT WITHIN THE REPUBLIC/JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Even if his mother was still a U.S. Citizen, his father WASN'T, thus per Bingham Cruz does NOT meet the requirement that BOTH parents MUST be U.S. Citizens and therefore he is NOT a natural born citizen. His father was also a Canadian citizen and thus owed allegiance to Canada NOT the U.S. That disqualifies him. And if Cruz's mother was a Canadian Citizen as the Canadian records indicate then it's obvious that Cruz was not a natural born U.S. citizen at birth, but instead a Canadian citizen.
"Cruz's mother married Alan Wilson in 1959 and they moved to London, England in 1960. She divorced her first husband in 1963 (per Alan Wilson) and continued to live in England until sometime after the death of a child she had (out of wedlock), Michael Wilson (not Alan Wilson's son - he says they were definitely divorced but agreed to allow her to use his last name for the child).
"London records identify a Michael Wilson was born and died in 1966 and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery in Kensington, a London neighborhood. Eleanor then returns to Houston sometime in 1966 after the crib death of her son, where she meets Rafael Cruz. Rafael Cruz states that they moved to and were living in Canada sometime around 1966-1967 (he states they lived there for 8-years returning in 1975 so that makes it 1967. Canadian records show an address for them in 1975 in Calgary). He states he became a Canadian Citizen in 1968 and that he and Eleanor were married sometime around 1967-1968 (Ted says 1969) but where...Canada? Most likely. No one can find a Marriage license for them here in the States.
"Because Cruz's mother lived in London from 1960 to sometime in 1966 after the death of her first son, and then almost immediately ends up in Canada with Cruz sometime around 1967, she CLEARLY did not meet the required 10-year physical U.S. residency requirement which requires that at least 5 of those years must be spent physically within the U.S. BEFORE the birth of the child. (Alan Wilson continues to live in London and is still a U.S. citizen.)
"As previously mentioned, at the time Cruz was born in 1970 Canada did not recognize dual citizenship and per their laws if you are born on Canadian soil (and even today in an airplane over Canadian airspace) you are a Canadian born citizen only (in 1970). Their dual citizenship clause was changed in 1977.
"Additionally, there is a documented report that Cruz's parents voted in the 1974 Canadian Federal elections as Canadian citizens. This document can be found in Canadian government online searches.
"As for her possible Canadian citizenship, Canadian law at that time states that a foreign spouse (in this case Cruz's mother) who was married to a Canadian Citizen (his father became one in 1968) and lived in Canada with said Canadian spouse (her husband) for 1-year AUTOMATICALLY became a Canadian citizen, which would account for the information that they voted in 1974 as Canadians and that their names appear as Canadian Citizens on the 1974 Canadian Election Voter list.
"This could quite possibly be the reason why Cruz hasn't produced a Consular Report of Birth Abroad to substantiate his U.S. citizenship because he doesn't have one. It is up to the U.S. Consulate to determine Cruz's birth citizenship and if his parents went to the Consulate to report it, the Consulate most likely refused to 'grant' U.S. citizenship based on the fact that Cruz's parents were Canadian citizens by virtue of his father becoming one and his mother meeting the statute of being married to one and living in the country for the 1-year required time, as well as Ted being born on Canadian soil which makes him a 'natural-born CANADIAN' citizen just like Rand Paul stated. Per Canada, they stated Ted was/is a Canadian and nothing more.
[Note: A copy of what appears to be a Delaware birth certificate for Cruz's mother is shown at www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/, together with this excerpt from a Cruz campaign statement: "Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law. In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970: Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967—only 3 years before Senator Cruz’s birth."]
"It has become rather obvious that she did not report his birth OR OBTAIN a CRBA. How do we know this?
"a) Cruz said his mother told him that he could claim his citizenship if he ever wanted to, but that he never pursued it and thought the matter was settled 'which means she didn't report or claim it at time of his birth', and...
"b) ...Cruz renounced his citizenship in May 2014, which again proves that his mother did not, per U.S. Immigration law report/claim his birth AND legally renounce his Canadian citizenship at the same time she reported her son's birth IF the U.S. Consulate granted U.S. Citizenship which it is apparent they did not as Cruz would have had to...
"c) ...claim his U.S. Citizenship by age 18, RENOUNCE his Canadian Citizenship AND take an 'OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to the U.S.' If he didn't, then after age 18 he would have to claim said citizenship through 'normal immigration/naturalization process' that all immigrants must go through to become a U.S. Citizen and it is apparent that he didn't do any of that as he did not renounce his Canadian Citizenship until 2014.
"SO THE QUESTION IS...if Cruz's mother was DENIED U.S. Citizenship for her son by the U.S. Consulate OR; she did NOT report his birth in Dec 1970/Jan 1972 and Cruz himself did NOT claim his U.S. Citizenship by age 18 through the U.S. Immigration/Naturalization Dept AND RENOUNCE his Canadian Citizenship (which we know he did not as it was done in 2014) AND give an Oath of Allegiance to the U.S., AND if he did NOT do so AFTER age 18 which would require him to go through the entire Naturalization process per U.S. Law then...
"'Senator Ted Cruz'" Not only is an illegally sitting Senator, he also HAS NO U.S. AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AT ALL! NONE!
"Part 6: PROOF THAT CHILDREN BORN ABROAD (CANADA) ARE 'NATURALIZED CITIZENS' NOT NATURAL BORN:
"Maine Governor Paul LaPage recently announced that he was supporting Trump because he knew he was a natural born citizen whereas Ted Cruz wasn't. How does he know this? Because his own 2-Daughters, born to 2 U.S. Citizens (LaPage & his wife) while living/working in Canada (for his job) had to have their births reported to the U.S. Consulate and had to claim their U.S. Citizenship through U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION and per authorities they are NOT Eligible to run for President as they are 'naturalized U.S. Citizens' NOT Natural Born.
"Cruz only had '1' U.S. Citizen Parent and that does not make him 'natural born'. So, if the Governor of Maine's children are not considered natural-born and a re only 'naturalized' so is Cruz and that makes him ineligible...and more...HE KNOWS IT!
"…When asked why he chose to throw his support behind Trump as opposed to one of the other remaining candidates in the race, LePage responded that his decision was rather simple. LePage, a U.S. citizen born in Maine, revealed that two of his adult daughters were born in Canada during the 70’s when LePage was living and employed there. LePage told Carr that he and his wife were required to have their daughters naturalized. LePage continued, stating that he had sought an answer as to whether or not either of his Canadian-born daughters could ever become President.
"LePage told Carr that his inquiry resulted in an unequivocal 'No'. LePage’s daughters, born in Canada to two U.S. citizen parents, are not natural-born citizens. As such, LePage was told that neither daughter is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States."
If LePage's daughters are not eligible, Cruz certainly isn't.
The American people deserve all the facts.
Any presidential aspirant should provide them before he or she stands for nomination.
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.