Over on WESH, Channel 2 out of Orlando, Florida, Sen Cruz again suggested US statutes makes him an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, or did he?
Here is the transcript...sorry about the caps.
JOSH: FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW, YOU WERE BORN IN CANADA. ANY QUESTIONS SURROUNDING ELIGIBILITY THERE?
SENATOR CRUZ: THERE ARE NO SERIOUS QUESTIONS. MY MOTHER WAS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN. U.S. LAW HAS DEFINED A U.S. CHILD BORN ABROAD IS A U.S. CITIZEN. JOHN MCCAIN WAS BORN IN PANAMA. GEORGE ROMNEY WAS BORN IN MEXICO. HIS PARENTS WERE MORMON MISSIONARIES DOWN THERE.
BARRY GOLDWATER WAS BORN IN ARIZONA BEFORE ARIZONA WAS A STATE. IT WAS A TERRITORY. THE LEGAL QUESTIONS COME UP MULTIPLE TIMES. IT IS CLEAR THE CHILD OF A U.S. CITIZEN BORN ABROAD IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Although Sen Cruz is welcome to his own opinions and beliefs as to his presidential eligibility when he states at the conclusion of this segment, "It is clear the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen, he is quite wrong to imply U.S. law makes it so.
Notice at the very beginning of the transcript how Sen Cruz first tries to tie U.S. Law into supporting his final conclusion, when, in fact, as he, himself, plainly states: "U.S. law has defined a U.S. child born abroad as a U.S. citizen." As Sen Cruz well knows, there is absolutely nothing in U.S. law that would make a child born abroad of a U.S. citizen parent an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen.
Moreover, the three examples he uses to justify his own conclusion have also been seriously questioned, but he makes no note of these controversies .
But first, let's look as the law Sen Cruz was talking about:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) (d)
d. This statute is no longer operative (The 1790 naturalization Act), however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF "IN THE UNITED STATES" (c)
c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
This was John McCain's problem. This statement simply means a person born abroad on a U.S. military installation is not necessarily within U.S. jurisdiction. First a treaty has to be negotiated and signed with the host country. When this has been completed, Congress must pass specific legislation authorizing said U.S. military installation to be within US jurisdiction. Unfortunately for John McCain, all this took place 11 months after his birth, but was deemed retro-active to 1902; the problem still remained: Congress simply doesn't have the authority to statutorily make someone an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen.
George Romney was born in Mexico to expatriated Mormon parents. That made him a citizen of Mexico at birth and not a US citizen “natural born” or otherwise.
Lastly, Sen Cruz mentions Barry Goldwater. The Arizona Territory was an organized territory of the United States that existed between 1863 and 1912, when the state of Arizona was admitted to the US. The inhabitants of an "organized territory of the United States" are considered US citizens upon becoming a territory of the United States. This was the case with Berry Goldwater. He was born on January 2, 1909, in Phoenix, Arizona Territory. Arizona became a state in 1912, after adopting the US Constitution, which allowed Berry Goldwater to take full advantage of the grandfather clause contained in Art. II §I Cl. 5.
I thought the law was intended that if both parents were US citizens and were "abroad" at the time of the child's birth due to military or just on a trip, the child was a natural born citizen - if one parent is a citizen, the other is not but the child is born in the United States, he is a natural born citizen; if one parent is a US citizen and the other is not and the child is born in the country of the parent that is not, the child is a citizen of that country; and if both parents are not citizens of the US and are not here legally, any child/children they have while here illegally are not citizens - they are citizens of their parents' original country.
I believe any multi-national candidate that the citizens elect into office next time, will nullify the CASE the country would have against Obama - overturning everything he did while in office - as he was never eligible to be president and therefor, is not president - and that is how it is. So - though I am very impressed with Senator Cruz as a senator - ambitions can corrode a clear future... which this country so desperately needs.
In light of Jay's "hint" to G. Washington, chairmen of the 1789 constitutional convention then in session, that the command in chief of the nation's armed forces should not devolve on any person subject to a foreign sovereignty at birth, this must be the controlling parameters of the true definition of an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen we must all accept. The legal term of art: "natural born Citizen" as it is used in the executive qualification clause of the US Constitution pertains to the civic status required to achieve this objective. Its function is to strictly limit the command in chief of the nation's armed forces to persons born under US sovereignty alone.
Since the founders and framers of the US Constitution clearly moved to prohibit naturalized US citizens from the presidency due to their previous allegiances to foreign sovereignties (Art. I §8 cl. 4), it was also their intention in using the “natural born Citizen” requirement to also block US citizens from the presidency who were subject to foreign sovereignties at birth.
Beyond this point it eludes me to find any other possible way the founders and framers of the US Constitution could have assured themselves that the command in chief of the nation's armed forces did no devolve on a person born subject to a foreign power other than to require such persons to be born of US citizen fathers within the jurisdiction (during their day). Later, when the Doctrine of Couverture was abandoned, both parents would be required to be U.S. citizens subject to the jurisdiction before the issue occurred in order to fulfill this requirement.
When you realize virtually all executive power in this country is held by one person as the commander in chief of all of this nation's armed forces, and also take into account the vast increase in speed and destructive fire-power modern weapons now have over their 18th Century counterparts, you begin to realize just how important this requirement has become in today's turbulently shrinking world, and how important it is to apply the narrowest of definitions to the "natural born Citizen" requirement in the presidential qualification clause rather than standing on the threshold of abandoning it altogether forever.
If we abandon the natural born citizenship clause now, it will be exploited by others who come after Sens. Cruz (Rubio and Jindal) who may not share their political convictions and expose us all to the greatest threat to the Republic the founders and framers of the US Const., knew well, feared most, and warned us all against: the loss of our freedoms and liberties not from an external military threat but from political subversion from within our own political system. There is no absolute, fail-safe, clause or provision that will protect the Republic from just such a fate, but if we weaken this provision now that fate will come sooner rather than later and we future generations of Americans will look back and give us the blame.
Lastly, there are plenty of other political venues Sens Cruz (Rubio and Jindal) can help this country move forward without forever weakening this increasing essential precaution the founders and framers of the US Const. have specifically warn us all about.