9 Responses to “More evidence that Cruz is not eligible”

1. William F. ede, Jr.
   January 14th, 2016 @ 8:34 am

   Congressional Record
   110th Congress (2007-2008)

   ________________________________________
   JOHN S. McCAIN, III CITIZENSHIP — (Senate – April 30, 2008)
   Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 715, S. Res. 511
   Our Constitution contains three requirements for a person to be eligible to be President–the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. ,
   …………….., it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.
   Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen”. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not.
   Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe also analyzed the issue and came to the same conclusion–that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen eligible to serve as President.
   I ask unanimous consent that the legal analysis of Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe be printed in the Record.
   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
   GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP,
   Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
   Re legal analysis of question whether Senator John McCain is a natural born citizen eligible to hold the office of President.
   Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
   Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
   Professor Tribe and I are in agreement that the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone make him a natural-born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.
   Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
   Very truly yours,
   THEODORE B. OLSON.
   —
   GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
   Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
   Re legal analysis of question whether Senator John McCain is a natural born citizen eligible to hold the office of President.
   Hon. Arlen Specter,
   Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
   DEAR SENATOR SPECTER: Pursuant to a request received from Democratic Committee staff, I enclose for your consideration a copy of my and Professor Laurence Tribe’s analysis of the question whether Senator John McCain is a “natural born citizen” eligible, under Article II of the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States. Professor Tribe and I are in agreement that the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone make him a natural born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.
   Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
   Very truly yours,
   THEODORE B. OLSON.
   —
   March 19, 2008.
   We have analyzed whether Senator John McCain is eligible for the U.S. Presidency, in light of the requirement under Article II of the U.S. Constitution that only “natural born Citizen[s] ….. shall be eligible to the Office of President.” U.S. Const. art. II, §1, cl. 5. We conclude that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.
   The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898).
   These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance.
   Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
   Congress has recognized in successive federal statutes since the Nation’s Founding that children born abroad to U.S. citizens are themselves U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. §1401(c); see also Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, §1, 48 Stat. 797, 797.
   Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, §1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
   Senator McCain’s status as a “natural born” citizen by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parents is consistent with British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were “natural-born Subjects” were also “natural-born Subjects ….. to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.” British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geol. 2, c. 21. The Framers substituted the word “citizen” for “subject” to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two terms are otherwise identical. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34-35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress’s statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were “natural born” citizens fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one’s birth made one natural born.
   There is a second and independent basis for concluding that Senator McCain is a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone
   [Page: S3646]
   would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655-66. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly enshrines this connection between birthplace and citizenship in the text of the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1 (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. *.*.* ”) (emphases added). Premising “natural born” citizenship on the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown–including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies–were deemed “natural born subjects.” See, e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354 (Legal Classics Library 1983) (1765) (“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king.*.*.* ”).
   There is substantial legal support for the proposition that the Panama Canal Zone was indeed sovereign U.S. territory when Senator McCain was born there in 1936. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that, “[f]rom 1904 to 1979, the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal and the surrounding 10-mile-wide Panama Canal Zone.” 0’Connor v. United States, 479 U.S. 27, 28 (1986). Congress and the executive branch similarly suggested that the Canal Zone was subject to the sovereignty of the United States. See, e.g., The President–Government of the Canal Zone, 26 Op. Att’y Gen. 113, 116 (1907) (recognizing that the 1904 treaty between the United States and Panama “imposed upon the United States the obligations as well as the powers of a sovereign within the [Canal Zone]”); Panama Canal Act of 1912, Pub. L. No. 62-337, §1, 37 Stat. 560, 560 (recognizing that “the use, occupancy, or control” of the Canal Zone had been “granted to the United States by the treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama”). Thus, although Senator McCain was not born within a State, there is a significant body of legal authority indicating that he was nevertheless born within the sovereign territory of the United States.
   Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860–one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
   Senator McCain’s candidacy for the Presidency is consistent not only with the accepted meaning of “natural born Citizen,” but also with the Framers’ intentions when adopting that language. The Natural Born Citizen Clause was added to the Constitution shortly after John Jay sent a letter to George Washington expressing concern about “Foreigners” attaining the position of Commander in Chief. 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (1911). It goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States; Senator McCain is certainly not the hypothetical “Foreigner” who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.
   Therefore, based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.
   LAURENCE H. TRIBE.
   THEODORE B. OLSON.
   Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
   The resolution (S. 511) was agreed to.
   The preamble was agreed to.
   The resolution, with its preamble, is as follows:
   S. Res. 511
   Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States;
   Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
   Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
   Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term “natural born Citizen”;
   Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
   Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
   Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
   Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

   I am including the following information as substantive proof that the Democratic Party has and is unlawfully “Reading out of Statutes” unlawfully changing the meaning, during the consideration of Calendar No. 715, S. Res. 511.
   Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation.
   U.S. Supreme Court: “[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.'” 503 U.S. 249, 254.
   Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.” Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other “natural and reasonable construction” of the statutory language, this Court is “not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).

2. William F. Reade, Jr.
   January 14th, 2016 @ 8:50 am

   House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty, and taxes
   Fourteenth Amendment
   Whatever might have been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization.
   Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States – a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,” which is vastly different from local jurisdiction due to physical location alone.
   This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one claim of allegiance.
   United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”

3. Philip stone
   January 14th, 2016 @ 12:21 pm

   Soetoro, Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio all have foreign parents which prevent them from being natural born citizens a constitutional requirement for presidents and vps. The definition of NBC as one born on US soil to US citizen parentS was set as a precedent in the 1875 SCOTUS case Minor v Happersett. Further after the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark it became binding precedent.

4. Steve Wittlake
   January 14th, 2016 @ 12:25 pm

   I o not know what this is all abut but McCain was not born in the Panama Canal. He was born
   in Colon, Republic of Panama. You cannot change the Constitution without a vote of 3/4 of the States.

5. Steve Wittlake
   January 14th, 2016 @ 12:26 pm

   I do not know what this is all abut but McCain was not born in the Panama Canal. He was born
   in Colon, Republic of Panama. You cannot change the Constitution without a vote of 3/4 of the States.

6. Analyst...
   January 14th, 2016 @ 1:20 pm

   Now, if we can get Cruz to admit that he’s “full of it,” then, we can get past this moron politician to start winning the whole ball of wax!

   Who the hell would vote for this guy when all he’s done is focus on his absurd thought that he’s eligible?

   Cruz is a divider, not a rally perosn!

   That tells me that he’s got another agenda! And since he’s got “dual loyalty,” this so-called attorney should not be trusted–Ever!

7. Steve Wittlake
   January 14th, 2016 @ 2:19 pm

   I have always thought that Cruz and Rubio had a hidden agenda but that is just my opinion.

8. taino21
   January 14th, 2016 @ 3:55 pm

   The founding father’s stated that natural born citizen status is inherited, government can’t change the meaning no matter how many laws they pass. Since this country was founded I haven’t heard anyone inheriting anything from government! Dr. David Ramsey considered to be one of the first if not the first historian of the American Revolution and closed friend of George Washington wrote, A DISSERTATION On THE
   MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
   David Ramsay
   1789. This is one year before the Constitution was ratified. In it he states:”None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one can be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens.” So there, one of the founding father’s stating natural born citizen is inherited from parents, in plural who were citizens, in plural.

9. Steve Wittlake
   January 14th, 2016 @ 7:33 pm

   Cruz sure does not know how to read. He still keep saying that he inherited natural born citizenship from his mother even in the debate.
   The Naturalization laws give Citizens not natural born citizen. How did this person ever get out of college. Maybe if a freight train hits him it will install some brains upstairs.

Leave a Reply