Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961) and Discussion of Ted Cruz’s Foreign Birth Status Questions
See this U.S. Citizenship case and decision of the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court, Montana v Kennedy (1961), re the importance of the citizenship of the father when a child is born in a foreign country with only the mother being a U.S. Citizen re Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility status (Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a foreign national father): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/366/308.html or https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/308/case.html
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.
Fast forward to now and we see Ted after deciding to run for President decided to renounce he Canadian citizenship. But I’ve heard no word as whether he renounced any Cuban citizenship he may have had from birth gained via his father. Did Ted’s father renounce his Cuban citizenship in Canada? No one knows? But legal renunciations of any of one’s dual-Citizenship parts after one’s birth does NOT in any way change the conditions of your exact Citizenship status at birth. Ted was born a dual/multiple Citizen of more than one country. Ted was not a “natural born Citizen” when he was born, i.e., with sole allegiance to only one country! And that is what the founders and framers of our Constitution intended and understood. Future President had to have sole allegiance and unity of citizenship in one and only one country at birth – the United States. The founders and framers did NOT wish that any future President would have “foreign influence” or allegiance claims on them by or at birth. For national security reasons, they wanted the future Commanders in Chief to have sole allegiance to only the USA. Obama, a self proclaimed Citizen of the World and with an unknown unproven birth narrative to 100% certainty and using various forged key ID documents, is a classic example of why they put that requirement in there. Obama does not meet the test. The political parties decided to ignore that part of the eligibility test in 2008. Now they are at it again. Ted does not meet that test either and never can. An important national security clause in Article II of our Constitution is being ignored by the major political parties and the enabling major media for several candidates now – Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal. I assume it is because the both major political parties want to ratify forever more the precedence of what they did in the 2008 election cycle with Obama.
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.
278 F.2d 68 affirmed.
Again, also visit and see this site re the 1934 law change for children born abroad where only the mother was a U.S. Citizen: http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html
CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
P.S. Also read this essay regarding the constitutional term in the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ