The silly argument about whether or not Ted Cruz is qualified to be president under the Constitution because he was born in Canada to an American mother still lingers in the media. It's really time to end the debate once and for all.
The key line in the Constitution is that the president must be a "natural born citizen". The question is whether or not Ted Cruz meets that criterion. In order to make that determination, one has to look at what the phrase "natural born citizen" means. The large majority of scholars say that a natural born citizen is a person who is a citizen at birth. Cruz meets that test because his mother was a citizen and that made him a citizen. The people who question this argue that a natural born citizen includes only those people who were born within the USA. They point out that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue as well. Let's dispose of the second part of that argument first. The fact that the Supreme Court has not ruled on a question does not make it a real issue. For example, the Constitution requires that the president must be a minimum of 35 years old. That Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether 35 years on a lunar calendar would suffice. After all, someone who is only 34 years old on our normal calendar might be 35 years old if one used a lunar calendar like the Islamic religious calendar. Nevertheless, the lack of the ruling does not make it an issue.
The real question then is why would "natural born" be used to indicate that one was born within the USA. It would have been easy enough for the Constitutional Convention to have written "born within the USA" if that is what was meant. Instead, they used the words "natural born".
The best way to understand how the Constitutional Convention used "natural born" is to look at other uses of the phrase back at the time the Constitution was written. The very first Congress of the USA passed a statute to determine who was a citizen and it used the phrase "natural born". The Act of March 26, 1790 states in pertinent part the following: "And 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..."(Emphasis added). The first Congress which included many of the people who wrote the Constitution made clear that "natural born citizens" included people who were born outside of the USA to American citizens. This alone should end the argument.
There is, however, more that confirms this. The British Nationality Act of 1730 which was in place at the time the Constitution was written also provided that children of "natural born subjects" of the Crown were also "natural born subjects" of the Crown no matter where they were born.
Put this all together and the conclusion is inevitable. Ted Cruz was a citizen of the USA as of the time of his birth. As such, he is a "natural born citizen" and is qualified to be president.
The key line in the Constitution is that the president must be a "natural born citizen". The question is whether or not Ted Cruz meets that criterion. In order to make that determination, one has to look at what the phrase "natural born citizen" means. The large majority of scholars say that a natural born citizen is a person who is a citizen at birth. Cruz meets that test because his mother was a citizen and that made him a citizen. The people who question this argue that a natural born citizen includes only those people who were born within the USA. They point out that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue as well. Let's dispose of the second part of that argument first. The fact that the Supreme Court has not ruled on a question does not make it a real issue. For example, the Constitution requires that the president must be a minimum of 35 years old. That Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether 35 years on a lunar calendar would suffice. After all, someone who is only 34 years old on our normal calendar might be 35 years old if one used a lunar calendar like the Islamic religious calendar. Nevertheless, the lack of the ruling does not make it an issue.
The real question then is why would "natural born" be used to indicate that one was born within the USA. It would have been easy enough for the Constitutional Convention to have written "born within the USA" if that is what was meant. Instead, they used the words "natural born".
The best way to understand how the Constitutional Convention used "natural born" is to look at other uses of the phrase back at the time the Constitution was written. The very first Congress of the USA passed a statute to determine who was a citizen and it used the phrase "natural born". The Act of March 26, 1790 states in pertinent part the following: "And 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..."(Emphasis added). The first Congress which included many of the people who wrote the Constitution made clear that "natural born citizens" included people who were born outside of the USA to American citizens. This alone should end the argument.
There is, however, more that confirms this. The British Nationality Act of 1730 which was in place at the time the Constitution was written also provided that children of "natural born subjects" of the Crown were also "natural born subjects" of the Crown no matter where they were born.
Put this all together and the conclusion is inevitable. Ted Cruz was a citizen of the USA as of the time of his birth. As such, he is a "natural born citizen" and is qualified to be president.
No comments:
Post a Comment