Op-ed:
Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are
eligible to be President or Vice-President
By: Diane Sori
Last Tuesday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz
showed what an elected official should be...a champion of 'We the People.' In
a 21-hour 'non-filibuster' filibuster,
Cruz let it be known about the danger facing us all...the danger
that is ObamaCare. By standing strong, Ted Cruz got thrust into the
limelight as the frontrunner for the Republican Presidential or
Vice-Presidential nomination
in 2016...and rightly so.
One of those standing united with Ted
Cruz, and speaking when he needed a break, was Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who
in 2012 was on Mitt Romney's Vice-Presidential 'short list' and whose name is
also be spoken of for the Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination in 2016.
However,
with both Cruz and Rubio's
names comes the issue raised by some that neither meets the requirement
of
being a ‘natural born citizen.’ But what most do NOT realize is that in
the case
of both men this concern can be resolved by just reading the words...or
lack of words...in the Constitution itself...just reading the words as
written...NOT trying to change or reinterpret words that our Founders
made clear and
simple in their meaning.
Let me explain...let's start with
the critical issue that is at the crux of the issues raised...what exactly is a 'natural
born citizen'? Simply, the Constitution does
NOT define those words, but the Framers’ understanding...combined with statutes
enacted by the First Congress...indicate that the phrase meant both birth
abroad to American parents (in a manner regulated by federal law...more on that
later), and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental
citizenship.
In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning many times in various contexts even with being a 'natural-born
citizen' a requirement to be President or Vice-President of this
country. But again, NOWHERE in the
Constitution does it define ‘natural born citizen ' while 'native born'
citizen is clearly defined.
And while Article 2 of the
Constitution does state, “no person except a natural born citizen
… shall be eligible to the Office of President,” the actual term
‘natural born citizen’ was ambiguous at best. Some contend that anyone
born inside the U.S. should be considered a natural born citizen, and the Congressional Research Service (CRS)* seems to back that view.
They have stated that, "The
weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means
one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S.
citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child
born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to
foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States
citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met
U.S. residency requirements.”
And herein lies the key, and read
these words very carefully, “one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws
of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at
birth" or "by birth,"
including any child born
"in" the United States, even to alien parents...”
Even to “alien parents,” as
long as the child is born “in” the
United States...that is the key phrase in Marco Rubio’s particular case.
In the case of Canadian born Ted
Cruz the words "at birth" are
key as Cruz's mother, a U.S. born American citizen, conferred citizenship to Ted under 'The Nationality Act of 1940' which states which
children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."
Stating those born in the United States or
born outside the United States to at least one parent who was a citizen
at the time of the child's birth allows citizenship to go
to that child if that citizen parent spent a certain number
of years in the U.S.
And this is where Ted Cruz's American citizenship
is garnered from as Cruz being born to a born in America citizen mother, was able to assume
her citizenship 'at birth' because under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986...Cruz was
born in 1970...someone must have a
citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years,
including five years after the age of 14, in order to have citizenship
conferred to them.
The indisputable fact is that Ted
Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born and raised in the U.S...in Delaware...did
NOT go to Canada until her mid-to late 20s. and did NOT have Ted until into her
30's...way beyond the mandatory 5-year-post-age-14 residency
requirement.
And
herein lies Barack HUSSEIN Obama's problems for whether he was born in Kenya as
some claim or whether he was born in Hawaii as others claim...his
American citizen mother did NOT reside in the U.S. for 5 years after
age 14 as she was 18 years of age when Obama was born...only 4 years after
reaching the mandatory 14 years of age...and Obama was born in 1961 so he comes
under the same rules of law as Ted Cruz does.
This simple fact makes Barack HUSSEIN Obama ineligible to be President NO matter which side of
the 'birther' vs 'non-birther' battle
one is on.
As for Rubio, while we all know his parents
were NOT citizens at the time of his birth there is NO doubt whatsoever that
Marco Rubio was indeed born “in” the
United States, in Miami in fact, as he has an indisputable birth certificate
that proves just that. His parents received their final naturalization
papers in 1975, four years after Marco’ birth but there is NO denying that his
“alien parents” were here LEGALLY, they came here through the LEGAL process,
they lived here LEGALLY, and they became citizens LEGALLY as per the
requirements of that day. So, yes they were “alien parents” at the time
of Marco’s birth but the Congressional
Research Service clearly states that ‘under the Constitution’ as long as
the person in question was born here, having “alien parents” means nothing.
There is even more credence in both
Cruz and Rubio's eligibility to become either President or Vice-President.
Article Two: Section One, Clause 5 of the Constitution states the eligibility
requirements for serving as either President or Vice President of the United
States:
“No person except a natural born
Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible
to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office
who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States.”
Now reread these words very
carefully again, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...”
“At the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution...” This again is a key phrase that allows both Cruz and Rubio
to be the Republican nominee for either position.
Let me again explain...the
requirement to be ‘natural born’ was an attempt to alleviate the fears that
foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation...the United States of
America...and use their wealth and influence, and power to impose a monarchy
upon the people, a monarchy, the very rule of government that the Founders were
opposed to.
So to make sure this did not happen,
as they were laying the foundations of the laws of our land that would became
our Constitution, the Founders made it clear that at the time of the “Adoption of this Constitution” that no
one NOT born on United States soil
would be eligible to become President, because they feared that England might
still try to destroy the emerging nation from within by ‘planting’ a person of
their choosing within the emerging ranks of leaders.
Breaking it down even further, this
phrase uses the term ‘natural born’ in context only to the time in which the Constitution
was being adopted and makes NO reference to ‘natural born’ in context to later
years.
Now also take into account the
words, “...have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States.” (Marco Rubio was
born here, has lived here his entire life, and is over 35 years of age...Ted
Cruz, while born in Canada, had citizenship conferred to him "at birth" through his mother, has
lived here most of his life, and is over 35 years of age) “...and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.” “been fourteen Years a resident...” the
word ‘resident’ contradicts the CRS’s
interpretive ruling of having to “be born in” or did they take into account in
their ruling that the Founders, at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution, realized that since the nation was new that maybe some who
aspired to the presidency might have been born in England or elsewhere but came
here as a child...hmmm, we will never know for sure.
But critical in today's questioning is
the memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research
Service (CRS), stating:
“Considering the history of the
constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the
phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the
1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first
Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the
term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to
parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court
dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born citizen"
would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or
"by birth."
And the words, "natural born citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to
U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth" are the most
important of all.
So with all the information I have
presented, it should be clear to all that both Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Florida
Senator Marco Rubio are indeed eligible to be either President or Vice-President
of these United States.
And by the way....Cruz/Rubio 2016 or Rubio/Cruz 2016...either way works for me.
_____________________________________________
*The
Congressional Research Service
(CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and
legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate,
regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within
the Library of Congress, the CRS has been a valued and respected resource on
Capitol Hill for nearly a century.
Op-ed: 
Today there should be NO hyphenated Americans (nor should there ever
be)…just Americans bowing their heads together in prayer as the flag of
these United States is raised all over this great nation, and then
solemnly lowered to half-staff. On this day let us remember the more
than one million American patriots who gave their lives in service to this
country. And when the flag is once again raised high at noon we must
remember to NOT allow their sacrifice to be in vain for a nation that
forgets its true heroes is a nation that loses its soul.
Today is a day when many Americans will visit cemeteries or memorials
nationwide to place small flags at the base of the headstones of the
fallen to let them know they are NOT forgotten.
Today is a day when the Pledge of Allegiance should take on a renewed
meaning, and should reawaken in us all the realization that we live in the
greatest nation the world has ever known, and remind us that some things are
indeed worth fighting and dying for.
Today is a day for prayers for those lost…a day for honoring their
memories NOT just with tearful remembrances but also with a smile…a day
to rediscover the meaning of what our military fights and dies for…our
liberty, our safety, our individual rights guaranteed us under our
Constitution, and the continuing American story of which we all play a part in.
