HAS THE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” CLAUSE BEEN RENDERED OBSOLETE?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jan. 3, 2014) — In a straw poll conducted by Townhall.com, two of the leading three candidates, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio, are ineligible to serve if the historical understanding of the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” is upheld.
As of Saturday at 4:17 p.m. EST, Cruz is leading with 12% of the total votes followed by Write-In candidates, with Rubio holding third place.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president and commander-in-chief to be a “natural born Citizen,” which historical treatises, letters and essays indicate was meant to preclude anyone with foreign influence from having command of the U.S. military.
In a July 25, 1787 letter to Gen. George Washington as the Constitution was being debated, John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
Washington and the other founders agreed, reportedly without debate (p. 353), that the term “natural born Citizen” would be a requirement for the presidency as opposed to simply “a Citizen,” which was stated as a requirement for members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.
Some believe that the delineation between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” is as yet unclear. An essay written in or after 1997 by Christina S. Lohman published in the Gonzaga Law Review contends in its conclusion that the Framers most likely considered children born in foreign countries to U.S.-citizen parents to be “natural born Citizens,” particularly if the parents were in the service of the U.S. government in some way.
A commenter to a Townhall article which notes that left-leaning writers at The Washington Post advised that Obama’s use of executive orders could be utilized by Republicans should Cruz hypothetically win the presidency in 2016 responded (h/t BirtherReport):
I sure get tired of seeing Conservatives pushing a candidate that is not eligible to be President.
Cruz is not a natural born citizen. But of course you all know that. But you feel that what the Liberals do makes it all right for Conservatives to do because now there is precedent.
How did we get from if Obama was born in Kenya he wasn’t eligible to Cruz was born in Canada and he is.
Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 to a Cuban-citizen father and U.S.-citizen mother. When confronted with possible ineligibility for the presidency in August 2013 by The Dallas Morning News, Cruz released his Canadian birth certificate to the publication with the contention that he was unaware that all of his life, he had been considered a Canadian citizen.
The News reported that Cruz “became an instant U.S. citizen” at the time of his birth but showed no documentation or historical precedent as supporting evidence. Certain immigration attorneys say that U.S. citizenship is determined by the length of time a foreign-born child or his parent(s) may have resided in the U.S.
The day after the Dallas newspaper’s report, ABC News reported that “Most legal scholars and Cruz agree that he’s an American. And if Cruz chooses to run for president in 2016, his technical Canadian citizenship shouldn’t matter, either.”
It further stated that “After a spokesman initially denied that Cruz was a dual citizen, the senator said in a statement that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship.” It quoted Cruz as having said, “Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator, I believe I should be only an American.”
Other outlets reported that Cruz was born with dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship. He officially renounced his Canadian citizenship in June of last year. However, Cruz has presented no proof that at birth he was considered a U.S. citizen. Beginning in 2003, he served as Solicitor General under then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, but the application forms he completed, which The Post & Email obtained in November, did not ask whether or not he was a U.S. citizen.
The U.S. State Department today states that a child born in a foreign country to one or two U.S.-citizen parents must be registered with the department by means of a “Consular Report of Birth Abroad” (CRBA) form. The Post & Email was told by a staffer at State that a certified copy of such a form is available only to the subject, an immediate relative or legal guardian once the relationship is proved.
The Post & Email has not been able to ascertain if a CRBA was required in 1970 for a child born in a foreign country to one or both U.S.-citizen parents.
As a sitting U.S. Senator, Cruz must be a U.S. citizen; otherwise, his occupation of the office is invalid according to Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The Post & Email has contacted Cruz’s media office to request that Cruz release information proving that he is a U.S. citizen but received no response.
On December 18, 2013, the North American Law Center (NALC) asked Cruz in an open “Call to Honor” to “end the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the United States of America, and to stop the systematic destruction of our Country. The action required is simple – but not easy, for it requires a selfless act of love and concern for others, and calls upon you to do the right thing. Yes, some will call it a true act of heroism.
“Senator Ted Cruz, as a true Christian, you must say to the nation and the world…
“It has been the delight and honor of my life that so many Americans have found me worthy of their respect and admiration, and have wanted me to run for president or vice president. But the truth is, I am not eligible for either office according to the United States Constitution Article II, Section I, Clause V wherein only a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, born of an American Citizen Father, can seek or hold these offices. I know that the Founders, in their brilliance, set this standard based on the Biblical principles of Natural Law, wherein the name, citizenship and birthright of a child was always passed by the blood of the father. Knowing this beyond question, a proud son of my Cuban father, I am not now, nor can I ever be, a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. Therefore, based upon unquestionable and prima facie evidence, I state for the record that Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a Kenyan Citizen father, is not now, nor has he ever been, nor will he ever be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. I call for the immediate resignation of Barack Hussein Obama and the legitimate investigation into all who are involved in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the United States and the world, as well as all who have engaged in the greatest political cover-up in the history of politics.”
Barack Hussein Obama claims that he was born in Honoulu, HI on August 4, 1961 “a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas.”
In “The Law of Nations,” which was reportedly heavily referenced by the Framers, Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel wrote:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The Post & Email was informed by email in 2010 by the British passport agency that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. had held two British passports issued in 1959 and 1962, respectively. Personnel there did not respond to our requests for photos of the passports’ pages despite the fact that Obama Sr. died in 1982.
On the “FighttheSmears” website launched by the Obama campaign in 2008, it was stated that Obama was born “a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.” Obama has also been reported as having been born in Indonesia by a Hawaii newspaper reporter in 2006 and an MSNBC commentator in late 2007.
Obama’s biographer reported between 1991 and 2007 that he was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii” until changing the biography to read that he was “born in Hawaii.”
Substantial doubt exists that dual citizenship is compatible with the Founders’ inclusion of the “natural born Citizen” clause.
In order for immigrants to America to become U.S. citizens, they must take an oath of allegiance, forswearing allegiance to their home country or any other country. In a 2005 essay on dual citizenship, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich wrote:
Immigration has been one of America’s greatest success stories, because as Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer puts it, “America’s genius has always been assimilation, taking immigrants and turning them into Americans.”1 Since the earliest days of the Founding Fathers, Americans as a people have insisted upon the patriotic assimilation of immigrants. That is to say, we have welcomed immigrants and, at the same time, insisted that they assimilate and become loyal Americans. And, overwhelmingly, they have.
For most of our history the idea of immigrant dual citizenship — that is, the retention by a naturalized American citizen of political allegiance to his or her birth nation after taking an oath of allegiance to the United States — was anathema. In this paper, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow John Fonte, clearly and cogently explains that the concept of dual allegiance — simultaneous loyalty to both the United States and a foreign nation — is incompatible with membership in our constitutional democracy built on the principle of equality of citizenship.
This rejection of dual allegiance is not a “conservative” or “liberal” principle; it is an American principle. I would imagine that the vast majority of Americans today would agree with the opposition to dual allegiance and foreign voting taken by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Administration in the 1930s.
Four years ago, the current Speaker of the House, John Boehner, said that since the state of Hawaii has “said” that Obama was born there, “that’s good enough for me” in regard to Obama’s eligibility.
As purported proof, the Obama regime published an image on the White House website said to be a scan of a certified copy of Obama’s original birth record from Hawaii on April 27, 2011. However, within 24 hours, the image was denounced as a poorly-crafted forgery.
A three-year criminal investigation into the birth certificate image and Obama’s Selective Service registration form yielded two 2012 press conferences in which lead investigator Mike Zullo and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who commissioned his “Cold Case Posse” headed by Zullo to carry out the probe, stated that the two “documents” are “computer-generated forgeries.”
More than 274,000 people voted in the Townhall survey, which includes Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who was born to legal immigrants from India who were not at the time U.S. citizens. The straw poll does not indicate who the “Write-In” candidates are.
Today, most Americans accept a person born on U.S. soil as a “natural born Citizen,” which would mean that two Islamic, Mexican or any other nationality of terrorists could illegally enter the country and have a child who could become president.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.