The love of my life, Ted Cruz, has officially declared his candidacy.
Everyone saw it coming. He already has the third most visits to Iowa (an important Republican caucus), according to informational site P2016.org. He creates his image in such a way in the national press such that many people, regardless of whether or not they agree with him, view him as a viable candidate. He’s a fringe candidate in the Republican Party, and uses that to his advantage – he decries the Republican establishment (who was never going to like him anyway), in favor of the more conservative base (especially in his home state of Texas).
But, fascinatingly, there is controversy over whether or not he’s even eligible to run. To quote Article Two of the Constitution:
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.Ted Cruz, despite his Texan constituency and Cuban roots, was born in Canada. Yes, the land of maple syrup, hockey, and communist health care. The natural born citizen clause is perhaps most interesting because it’s never been officially interpreted; no definition of “natural born citizen” was brought up in the Constitution, and the only court interpretations have been regarding citizens born in America to foreign parents.
Cruz’s situation is a bit different. At birth, he was an American citizen, thanks to his mother’s American citizenship, but was also a Canadian citizen (he has since renounced his Canadian citizenship). Based on the most common interpretation of the natural born citizen clause, he’s eligible to run, since he was a citizen “at birth.”
There have been a few, but not many, other times when the natural born citizen clause has been called into question. John McCain was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone to US parents, calling into question whether or not a military base counted as “in the United States,” and whether or not his citizenship from his parents would count. There’s only been one elected President where this was an actual issue. Chester A. Arthur, who became President in 1881 after James Garfield’s assassination, faced issues, according to J. Gordon Hylton of Marquette University Law School:
The controversy over Arthur’s citizenship status centers around the place of Arthur’s actual birth. By one account he was born in his family’s home in Franklin County, Vermont. If this was true, then he was clearly a natural born citizen. On the other hand, the competing account has it that he was born during his pregnant mother’s visit to her family’s home in Canada.Based on the interpretation Cruz is using, Arthur wouldn’t be eligible to run (much less become Vice President, since the same eligibility rules apply to both offices) since, at the time, citizenship couldn’t pass through the mother (thank you patriarchy). But, McCain would be eligible, and so would Barack Obama, even if he was born in Kenya, thanks to his mother’s citizenship.
If the latter story is true, then Arthur was technically foreign-born, and in 1829, citizenship in such cases passed to the child only if the father was a United States citizen, and, of course, at this point Arthur’s father was still a citizen of the British Empire.
But, most likely, this is a non-issue. Democrats and Republicans would much rather debate about other things that don’t matter instead of Constitutional law that doesn’t matter; back in 2008, the Senate passed a bipartisan, technically non-binding resolution declaring McCain eligible, just to get it out of the way. Citizenship will most likely not prevent Cruz from becoming President; his road to the White House has many obstacles, but the natural born citizen clause won’t be one of them.