Breaking-Exclusive: Co-Author Neal Katyal of Harvard Law Review Forum Article on Ted Cruz eligibility argued in favor (and the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling agreed) of and for upholding the applicable 1952 U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) in the 2010 SCOTUS case which established conditions for and said that persons born abroad to a sole U.S. Citizen parent in a status similar to Ted Cruz, whether the parent is a Father or a Mother, are at birth Statutory Citizens and Naturalized Citizens per the 1952 statutory immigration and naturalization law enacted by Congress.
Then in 2016 in the Harvard Law Review Forum, Neal Kaytal argued the opposite for a similar set of facts for a foreign-born person to one U.S. Citizen parent. He argued that foreign-born Ted Cruz is NOT a “Naturalized Citizen” at birth per U.S. Statutory Law enacted by Congress but instead is a “natural born Citizen” at birth and thus since a “naturalized Citizen” cannot be President, that Ted Cruz is eligible. Katyal Double Talking to America. What an ethically challenged and politically driven and conflicted attorney and person Neal Kaytal obviously is.
Cruz and Rubio were Citizens at Birth of a Foreign Country (Ted of 2 Foreign Countries) – Both NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States
Get PDF Copy of Ted Cruz Foreign Citizenship Facts Petition Here — Get PDF Copy of Marco Rubio Foreign Citizenship Facts Petition Here – Neither is constitutionally eligible to serve as President and Commander in Chief or Vice President!
A Simple Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of “natural born Citizens” to Other Type “Citizens” of the United States. Only a “natural born Citizen” Can Constitutionally be the President and Commander in Chief or the Vice-President. Click on Image For More Information.
More historical and legal papers and analysis on the true constitutional meaning and intent of the founders and framers of the presidential eligibility clause, natural born Citizen, in our U.S. Constitution can be found at this link: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3301209/
While this case does not go directly to the issue of “natural born Citizenship”, which is required per the presidential eligibility clause in our U.S. Constitution as to who can be President and CinC, as it only addresses basic “Citizenship” gained by statutory man-made laws, it is still interesting to know about in regards to prior Supreme Court decisions re children born overseas to a foreign national father. Under the naturalization powers of the U.S. Congress they can make, liberalize, or later take away paths to basic statutory Citizenship gained by a man-made law/statute. Subsequent U.S. statutes made gaining basic U.S. Citizenship less stringent. And Congress has in the last several decades since 1961 continually done that over the years. And they plan to continue to do so. For example, many now in Congress wish to allow the illegal immigrants to gain U.S. Citizenship. But such statutory laws can never make and take away “natural born Citizenship” gained from Natural Law and the Laws of Nature, which is a person born in the USA to parents who are both U.S. Citizens when their child is born. Although the political parties via Congress have quietly tried to legislate and redefine natural law citizenship, they have failed every time. All attempts at such by liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans (RINOs) died in committee. Congress and the political parties cannot change the Laws of Nature. See the various attempts listed in section five at: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
So what do the constitutionally subversive major political parties resort to and do now … just make a joint pact in 2008 to ignore words in the Constitution with the help of the enabling major media.
Back to Ted Cruz and the Montana v Kennedy (1961) Supreme Court discussion of facts of that case and the decision. If Ted Cruz would have been born before 1934 in a foreign country such as Canada, with a non-Citizen father (Ted Cruz had a non-Citizen father), Ted would not even have been a Citizen of the United States, let alone a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards. Under revised later more generous man-made laws of Congress Ted did get basic naturalized U.S. Citizenship at birth from his mother. However, even though he inherited basic statutory naturalized U.S. Citizenship from his mother at birth via U.S. naturalization acts passed by Congress, Ted also inherited Cuban or Canadian citizenship from his father, based on his father’s exact status then, since his father up until the time of Ted’s birth in Canada, they were still living in Canada and Ted’s father was not a U.S. Citizen, nor was he even close in time to applying for it.
Under Natural Law and the understanding and intent of the founders and framers of our Constitution, with Ted being born in Canada to a non-U.S. Citizen father and having more than one allegiance claim and national citizenship at birth, Ted is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards and thus is NOT eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military, even if you like his politics. A copy of the Montana v Kennedy (1961) case holding is shown below:
U.S. Supreme Court
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
Montana v. Kennedy
Argued March 22, 1961
Decided May 22, 1961
366 U.S. 308
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner’s mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized.
Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. Pp. 366 U. S. 309-315.
(a) R.S. § 2172, granting inherited citizenship to children born abroad of parents who “now are, or have been,” citizens, applies only to children whose parents were citizens on or before April 14, 1802, when its predecessor became effective. When petitioner was born in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship for foreign-born children, and it applied only to children whose fathers were citizens. Pp. 366 U. S. 309-312.
(b) Section 5 of the Act of March 2, 1907, which provided that
“a child born without the United States of alien parents shall be deemed a citizen of the United States by virtue of . . . resumption of American citizenship by the parent,”
is not applicable to petitioner, since mere marriage to an alien, without change of domicile, did not terminate the citizenship of an American woman either at the time of petitioner’s birth or at the time of his mother’s return to the United States, both of which occurred in 1906. Pp. 366 U. S. 312-314.
(c) A different conclusion is not required by the testimony of petitioner’s mother that she had been prevented from returning to the United States prior to petitioner’s birth by the wrongful refusal of an American Consular Officer to issue her a passport because of her pregnant condition. Pp. 366 U. S. 314-315.