The one special rule about US citizenship that applied to the Canal Zone is that US citizens there could pass on their citizenship indefinitely without ever having lived in the US. Since the Canal Zone no longer exists, this provision no longer applies.
While I agree that is the goal of the legislation, why would Congress have included a phrase such as “must have lived in the United States for five years after having attained age fourteen” (that is not the actual quote) if they really didn’t mean she had to have lived in the United States for five years after having attained age 14?
Even if that was some sort of colossal drafting error, under what legal theory could a court overturn it? Courts don’t overturn otherwise Constitutional laws just because they think that Congress didn’t really mean to say what they said. Or can you provide an example where they have done so?
There no other situation where 19 is a magic number. (Is my guess, I’m not a lawyer)
So are you suggesting that if there is no other law making 19 a magic number in some other situation, Congress (in its infinite wisdom) does not have the power to set 19 as the magic number for conveying citizenship?
The original meaning of the Constitution on the matter may have made Cruz ineligible to be President. But times change & laws are adapted. So he’s eligible, legally.
Of course, Cruz is generally fond of the most conservative interpretation of the Constitution. And he’d probably like to jettison several amendments. But, on this matter, he’ll go along with the liberal interpretation. Because it suits his ambitions…
The law as it was originally worded makes no sense, because it enables a 19 year old parent to pass on US citizenship to a child born overseas, but not an 18 year old parent.
They didn’t intend for this to be the law, even though that was how the law was written. They made a mistake, they added some numbers that seemed good but didn’t consider the corner case of an 18 year old parent.
The intent of the law was not to exclude 18 year old parents but include 19 year old parents, the intent of the law was that the parent had to have spent some time (5 years) in the United States, and not as very young child.
And the courts didn’t overturn it. Congress amended the law to make sense and not include the one year window where a child born overseas would not be a citizen.
I’m suggesting it’s a possible indicator of a transcription error or similar, and that there is a chance that the original intent was 18.
Does that translate into overthrowing the law? No. Is it an interesting facet to the discussion? Yes, imho.
ETA- also what Lemur866 said^^^.
Moderator Note
This being GQ, let’s refrain from political commentary of this kind. Thanks.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Why does Congress have the power to define legislatively the constitutional term “natural born citizen”?
Can it also define “cruel and unusual punishment” to mean burning at the stake and nothing else?
Can it say that “due process” mentioned in the 14th amendment doesn’t mean abortion?
Can it say that all citizens 15 and older have “attained the age of 35 years” for Presidential purposes?
I don’t think anyone is saying that they do. Congress has the power to grant citizenship, but to what extent a person getting citizenship via this or that law counts as being a naturally born citizen would be up to the Courts.
Congress did pass a “non-binding sense of the Congress” that McCain was a Natural Born Citizen, but as the name suggests, it didn’t have any legal force.
Sorry!
No problem. I just don’t want to see a political hijack develop related to specific politicians.
There MAY be a few who’d suggest born in Hawaii BEFORE it became a state would not be natural botn citizens, but since Obama is almost exactly the same age as me (both born in 1961), that’s a moot point in this case.
Barry Goldwater got creamed in 1964, so it doesn’t matter now, but some might have suggested that he wasn’t a natural born citizen either, as he was born in Arizona three years before it became a state.
No, I think a Bill of Attainder has to specifically be a declaration that a person is guilty of a crime. A declaration of something else (like “John Smith is an American citizen” or “John Smith doesn’t have to pay income tax”) is allowed to single out an individual.
Those few would be quite ignorant if so- both Hawaii and Arizona were US territory many long years before they were admitted as states.
A modern example would be Puerto Rico. A person born there is a US citizen (if parents aren’t diplomats, etc) and could run for President.
It’s an open issue of whether being born in even an incorporated territory territory, as Arizona was at the time of Goldwater’s birth, would confer “natural born” citizenship, since no case has ever addressed this issue. It is generally assumed that it would, but in absence of case law that is just an assumption.
Again, this is an assumption not based on any case law.
It is possible that “natural born” citizenship could be decided to only apply to people born in a US state itself, not territories or associated commonwealths. I personally think it would be highly unlikely, but it is not possible to say definitively.
There’s no basis for such a decision to be made. The Constitution doesn’t require that a natural-born citizen be born in a state.
‘Could’ it happen that way? Maybe. I don’t think so. There sure would be a stink if so.
There are three ways to get US citizenship.
-
to be born on US territory to parents that are not diplomats or are some other official capacity foreigners
-
be born abroad to a US citizen that satisfies some minimum residency requirements
-
be naturalized - that is, receive US citizenship some time after birth, not being eligible under the first two ways above
Since it is pretty clear that “natural born citizen” has to exclude at least one of these, that has to be the 3rd one. Since it is pretty clear that “natural born citizen” has to include at least one of these, that has to be the 1st one.
So the only one in contention is the 2nd one, and as is mentioned in the State Dept. manual, no court has ever decided whether the 2nd way confers the “natural born citizen” status. If Cruz runs, his eligibility will probably be contested and, hopefully, decided by a court without the weaselly “no standing” evasion.
Plenty of presidential candidates have been born abroad–John McCain was born in Panama for instance–and no court has ever ruled that they were ineligible to run.
What’s so special about getting a court ruling on this? Why not let the American voters decide? If we think he’s not qualified because he was born in Panama, we don’t have to vote for him.
Has any court, however, rules that he was eligible?
There were many lawsuits filed about McCain’s eligibility in 2008 and so far as I know all were dismissed on technical grounds, usually as the person bringing the suit had no standing.
In my looking around it seems there is general consensus that NOBODY would have standing to challenge in federal court the eligibility of a candidate running for president.
The avenue of attack that might work seems to be someone challenging in state court their eligibility to be on that state’s ballot and then it ending up in a federal appeal.
But in reality, someone of questionable eligibility would probably have to actually get elected before someone could show actual harm and thus standing.