Chuck, Grover is incorrect. If you read through both the majority opinion as well as the dissents, you’ll find that they’re entirely about naturalization law and whether or not the 14th Amendment’s protections are applicable to the plaintiff’s citizenship.
You might also want to make note of a passage in Justice Gray’s majority opinion in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark [a different section of which was cited by Justice Blackmun] in which he states “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized. . . by authority of Congress, . . . by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens . . .”, specifically citing foreign born children of citizens acquiring their citizenship through Congressional enactments, like INA 1952, as an example of “naturalized citizens.”
Chief Justice Roberts in the case of Zivotofsky v Clinton in reference to US citizenship law stated ““8 U. S. C. §1401(c); see Rogers v. Bellei, (1971) (foreign-born children of American citizens acquire citizenship at birth through “congressional generosity”) . . . The Constitution also gives Congress the power to make a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and pursuant to this power, Congress has enacted laws concerning the citizenship of children born abroad to parents who are citizens of this country, see United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
June 13, 2015 at 1:09am
“I don’t know what the hell you’ve been reading . . .”
Uhhh . . . the actual case opinion! Did you NOT notice the entire discussion by both Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion, as well as Justice Black’s dissent dealt entirely with naturalization law and whether or not the 14th Amendment was applicable to the plaintiff’s citizenship?
Did you NOT notice that the principal cases that were being referred to in both the majority opinion by Blackmun and the dissenting opinion by Black, Schneider v. Rusk and Afroyim v. Rusk were entirely about naturalized citizenship? Did you NOT take the time to even find out that the Court’s opinion in Afroyim v. Rusk was was actually written by Justice Black? One would hope that he had at least some understanding as to what his own opinion was about.
Referenced also, by Justice Blackmun was the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark. Another pertinent comment made by Justice Gray, though not specifically cited by Justice Blackmun is “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized. . . by authority of Congress, . . . by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens . . .”, specifically citing foreign born children of citizens acquiring their citizenship through Congressional enactments, like INA 1952, as an example of “naturalized citizens.”
Maybe you should read the opinion again with a more open mind.
June 12, 2015 at 10:42pm
Blackmun himself pointed out in the majority opinion that the source of Congress’ Constitutional power to make citizens rested on Article I sec. 8 when he quoted from Black’s majority opinion for Afroyim v. Rusk; “Congress’ power is to provide a uniform rule of naturalization and, when once exercised with respect to the individual, is exhausted, citing Mr. Chief Justice Marshall’s well-known but not uncontroversial dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824);”
Are you REALLY going to say after actually reading the case opinion, not to mention the dissents that ALL the members of the Court didn’t think that Bellei’s citizenship was acquired through the mechanism of Congress’ Constitutional power to establish “Rules of Naturalization”? All statutes that come into existence by means of Congressional enactments must rest upon some aspect of Congress’ Constitutionally prescribed powers. If the statutes by which Bellei acquired his citizenship weren’t dependent upon Congress’ power to establish “Rules of Naturalization” then what were they and why didn’t Justice Blackmun mention them instead of spending all his time talking about naturalization?
I think you’d do well to read the opinion again with a less closed mind, looking at what Justice Blackmun is really saying rather than what you don’t want him to say.
June 12, 2015 at 10:42pm
Why do you suppose Justice Black, the author of the majority opinion just 4 years earlier in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk stated “The majority opinion appears at times to rely on the argument that Bellei, while he concededly might have been a naturalized citizen, was not naturalized “in the United States.” Are you really saying that a United States Supreme Court Justice is going to indicate that the majority is saying something other than what their decision actually is? The only real dispute between the majority and those dissenting was whether or not Bellei’s citizenship enjoyed 14th Amendment protections, but there was no dispute as to the source of his citizenship.
Justice Black also says ““Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”
June 12, 2015 at 10:39pm
“The Court never referred to Aldo Bellei as a naturalized citizen.”
Just what do you think Justice Blackmun was referring to when he said Bellei’s citizenship was wholly statutory?
Maybe you missed the part in Blackmun’s decision when, referring to Justice Gray’s opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark said the following: “Then follows a most significant sentence:
“But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”
He goes on to state in the very next paragraph “The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, “No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with . . . .” United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 475 (1917).
Why do you suppose Blackmun spent so much time talking about naturalization, specifically citing two particular cases repeatedly, Schneider v. Rusk and Afroyim v. Rusk, both cases about naturalization, if naturalization wasn’t the issue?
Why do you suppose Justice Black, the author of the majority opinion just 4 years earlier in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk stated “The majority opinion appears at times to rely on the argument that Bellei, while he concededly might have been a naturalized citizen, was not naturaliz
 April 18, 2015 at 4:46am
“About the second exit is “Lucas Lane Road”
Uhhh . . . Not even close. Marin’s second exit, northbound out of San Francisco is Spencer Ave./Monte Mar Drive. Lucas Valley Road [which is named for John Lucas, a rancher in the 1800's] is the 14th northbound exit after the Golden Gate Bridge, roughly 18 miles PAST Sausalito and Tiburon.
While it’s true, most of the single family homes . . . OK, ALL of the single family homes along Lucas Valley road & its adjoining streets run $700k+, they’re also almost all tract housing built in the 1950′s. In Marin, that’s actually “affordable”. Out of the 13 larger cities and townships in the county, only 4 have median home prices under $1 million, and even the lowest of those, Novato, has a median home prices averaging $800k.
Supposedly, the community is supposed to be geared for teachers, seniors, retirees, and people who support communities in Marin such as police and fire personnel. There have actually been ongoing complaints and concerns expressed for quite some time that police and fire personnel who work here, can’t afford to actually live in the communities they serve.
While I won’t argue the characterization of Marinites having . . . elitist tendencies, there are some of us here trying to change that, George Lucas being one person who puts his money where his mouth is regarding giving back to their community. I don’t agree with him much politically, but if he manages to pull this off, it’s a plus for Marin.
March 22, 2015 at 6:33pm
Much as I like Ted Cruz, the fact of the matter is that he’s not eligible to legitimately hold either the office of President or Vice-President of the United States.
In the 1971 Roberts v. Bellei case decided by the US Supreme Court, the entire Court, both those holding to the majority opinion as well as those dissenting believed Aldo Bellei to be a naturalized citizen. The only dispute amongst the members of the Court was whether or not his citizenship enjoyed 14th Amendment protections, but they ALL agreed that the mechanism by which he acquired his citizenship was “wholly statutory” and thus that he was a naturalized citizen. Aldo Bellei was born outside of US territory as was Ted Cruz. Also, like Ted Cruz, Aldo Bellei’s father was not a US citizen. Aldo Bellei’s mother, like Ted Cruz’s mother “was” a US citizen and therefore furnished the basis for the application of US statutory law [currently 8 USC sec. 1401] to acquire his citizenship. Ted Cruz’s citizenship therefore was acquired in exactly the same manner as Aldo Bellei’s and, like Aldo Bellei, he MUST be a naturalized citizen.
The Constitutional requirement is that you have to be a natural born citizen to be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice-President. A “naturalized citizen” is not the same thing as a “natural born citizen.”
Oh here we go again! The regulars here will recognize this post as I have included it many times to show under US Naturalization and citizenship law Mr Cruz is eligible to be President and thereby also eligible as VP.
8 USC § 1401 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
Some tie the wording "Natural Born" in the Constitution to the definition in the (Swiss) Law of Nations that was used extensively during the writing of the Constitution. While I believe that was the intent of the Founders it was never so defined in law. The president cannot be a Naturalized citizen (members of Congress can) but the various ways one can claim citizenship by birth applies to the President. That includes an "anchor baby" born on US territory to non US Citizens!
teddlybar, Thank you. Someone else on here knows what the law really is. These people on here are in denial.
Flat out, Obama was not born in Hawaii. That is a fricking lie. If Obama the Kenyan can be President, then so can Cruz.
I don't know what the hell you've been reading, but it wasn't the actual opinions on the case of Rogers v Bellei because none of them assert that Mr. Bellei was a naturalized citizen. He was a citizen by birth who had lost his citizenship by virtue of never having resided in the United States for five consecutive years by the time he was 28, a requirement that was later repealed by Congress. If he had been a naturalized citizen, then he would still be a citizen, because there is no law limiting how long a citizen can live outside the country after being naturalized.
Back in 2008, I was of the same opinion, teddlybar.
The focus of my attention was John McCain being born in Panama.
Since then, I've looked into the issue and have been persuaded that "natural born" citizen is someone who is a citizen at birth -- i.e., someone who does not need to have been "naturalized."
I will check out the Bellei case right now to see if you are correct or if Grover is correct.
Anyway, I will be looking for the Supreme Court's rationale - not just the "bottom line."
 March 14, 2015 at 9:45pm
An opinion piece, even in as prestigious a publication as the Harvard Law Review does not carry the same authority as a US Supreme Court opinion. The US Supreme Court, generally considered the final arbiter of what’s Constitutional in our form of government has consistently indicated since the 1800′s that statutory citizens are “naturalized” citizens.
“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized. . . by authority of Congress, . . . by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens . . .” – – Justice Gray [Wong Kim Ark opinion]
“But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” – – Justice Blackmun [Rogers v Bellei opinion]
Aldo Bellei, like Ted Cruz, was born outside US territory. Aldo Bellei, like Ted Cruz, had a father who was NOT a US citizen. Aldo Bellei, like Ted Cruz, had a US citizen mother who provided a pathway to statutory US citizenship at birth. Aldo Bellei, was considered by the entire Court to be a naturalized citizen. . . . If Aldo Bellei was, then Ted Cruz is also. Naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President.
Then the one we have now is not eligible to be president. He was born out of the country, had a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. What's the difference???
As best as I can tell, the argument against Cruz is that the phrase "natural born citizen" does not mean what the plain language infers, a citizen naturalized at birth. The theory is that, in a dramatic departure from everything else in the Constitution, "natural" refers to the philosophical theories of natural law. Therefore, the phrase means a person who is a citizen of the United States, when born, under natural law. This is restricted to people born in the US, people born in the US with a US citizen father, or people born in the US with US citizen parents. The theory is kind of murky at this point.
Any SCOTUS decision about the Constitution is meaningless when you can read the words of the Founding Fathers. You have to know definitions of the time the Constitution was written. What you are citing is "case law" which again means nothing because they are not the words of the Founders. The Naturalization Act of March 1790 clearly states what a natural born citizen is:
..."And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” First Congress, Session II, Chapter 4, March, 26 1790
The Founders chose their words very carefully. It does not say “children of A citizen…” which would have meant, at the time, the Father, not the mother because Mother’s did not convey citizenship in their time. The statement is “children of CITIZENS” to be a child of citizens you have to have more than one parent that is a citizen–ergo FATHER AND MOTHER. This is further backed by the writings of Vattel whose writings the Founders studied extensively. http://www.americanclarion.com/constitution-vattel-natural-born-citizen-framers-knew-10184
The Court never referred to Aldo Bellei as a naturalized citizen. He was a citizen by birth who had lost his citizenship by virtue of never having resided in the United States for five consecutive years by the time he was 28, a requirement that was alter repealed by Congress. If he had been a naturalized citizen, then he would still be a citizen, because there is no law limiting how long a citizen can live outside the country after being naturalized.
 December 27, 2014 at 5:38pm
Regardless of “your” stance on the issue, if Cruz is nominated, you stand the risk, not only of losing an important voice in the Senate, but at the same time, losing the Presidential election as there are, I suspect, a signficant number of people who believe his birth in Canada disqualifies him from being eligible and therefore will not vote for him.
 November 29, 2014 at 4:12pm
” . . .wouldn’t you think the holders(/bank,financial institution) would have had the address of the owners?.If so why wouldn’t they have info on who was holding the bonds?”
It depends on what type of bonds they were. If they were registered bonds, you’d be correct, however if they were either bearer bonds or even older US Savings bonds, the issuer generally doesn’t contact the owner if they haven’t been turned in. Since they matured in 1992, the likelihood is that they were issued in the 1960′s. Bearer bonds were fairly common back then.
My suspicion is that they may have been bonds issued by the US treasury since they continued to accrue interest. Often bearer bonds cease paying interest once they mature.
After she passed away, I found some US bonds my Mom had that had been issued back in the 1940′s. I was surprised to learn they were still outstanding and earning interest.
[-1] November 17, 2014 at 11:46pm
Gee, I guess that means Ms. Behar also thinks David Ehrenstein is a racist since he’s the one that originally used the term in connection with Barak Obama in a column he wrote for the LA Times in March of 2007 titled ” Obama the Magic *****”. . . . or is she going to take the position that those who are liberals with “black” heritage are “allowed” to use the term “*****” indiscriminately?
The only thing Rush is guilty of is satirically referring to Mr. Ehrenstein’s OpEd by using Mr. Ehrenstein’s same terminology.
November 8, 2014 at 6:30pm
hmmm . . . Since this took place in California, what was the value of the necklace? If it was less than $950, then, under the rules of the just passed Proposition 47, this crime gets reduced to a misdemeanor. . . . In other words, he just gets a ticket instead of jail time.
tedd: The police didn't issue an NTA (Notice To Appear). He was arrested for FELONY theft. So much for your supposition. Nice try. No Cohiba, amigo!
 October 29, 2014 at 1:52pm
“Another official called the prime minister a “coward,” among other terms.”
The Prime Minister is a former Sayeret Matkal commando. I wonder just “what” special forces combat experience said “Administration Official” has that validates him designating that label for Mr. Netanyahu. o.O
 October 12, 2014 at 2:16am
“Muslims are not coming to get us as you’re suggesting” – - hmmmmmm . . . There are a couple of buildings missing from the New York skyline that would seem to indicate otherwise. o.O
So . . . in honor of her daughter, from now on, I guess I’ll be ordering “Snow Eggs over easy” . . . . or “Fried Snow” . . . . or “Snow Fried Steak” . . . . or “Snow Cordon Bleu” . . . or “Kung Pao Snow” . . . or “Snow Marsala” . . . or maybe I’ll have “Snow Enchiladas” . . . or “Snow Tetrazzini” . . . or “Chinese Snow Salad”. . . or “Sweet and Sour Snow”. . . for breakfast I could have Nieve Rancheros . . . . and for dinner . . . . ooooooh! “Beer Can Snow!” . . .;)
 September 24, 2014 at 11:30pm
*Leo Tolstoy first published the complete work of War & Peace at age 41 and one of his last pieces, the dramatic play, “Redemption”, at age 72.
*Harlan Sanders started KFC when he was 69.
*Ronald Reagan became President at age 70.
*Edmond Hoyle was 70 when he first started writing down the rules for card games.
*Ben Franklin was US Ambassador to France in his 70’s; participated in the writing of the US Constitution in his 80’s and was actively involved in the abolitionist movement to end slavery when he died at age 83.
*Peter Roget invented the Thesaurus at age 73.
*Grandma Moses was 76 when she cranked out her first painting.
*Marjorie Stoneman Douglas started her long fight to protect the Everglades at age 78.
*Gothe was still writing at age 83.
*Michelangelo was working on St. Peter’s Basilica at the time he died at age 88.
*Harry Bernstein achieved success as a writer, publishing his first book at age 96. And just to show that wasn’t an accident, published his second book two years later at age 98!
This is the United [Freakin’] States of America, where someone born to a single mom, growing up poor can aspire to be President; where a college dropout can become the richest man on the planet; where someone in their 20’s can become a billionaire; and where time and again, someone in their 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s is “just getting started.”
My aunt is 94. She is sharper than I am at 51. She still flirts with police officers when they pull her over for speeding. She is the light of the family, and except for minor issues, is healthier than most of us. Dr. Emanuel, you are the poster child for the selfish generation that people such as yourself are creating and perpetuating. Speak for yourself, act for yourself and leave the rest of us to live our lives as we see fit, as the Creator intended. I helped take care of my elderly in-laws when they reached their late eighties, and was more than happy to do so. I was grateful for the opportunity to show my gratitude for them having and raising their son---my husband. They accepted me as their daughter, and I accepted the responsibility to care for them as my parents. It was a blessing. Yes, I gave up some of my personal life, but I did it with a glad heart. Perhaps you should consider the fact that so many people are willing to take care of their elderly family members before you spout your hateful, egotistic, self-serving beliefs. Your arbitrary "expiration date" is an insult. Let's see if you still feel the same way on your 75th birthday...or that of your wife's.
 August 1, 2014 at 5:11pm
You’re trying to perpetuate a myth.
In 1948, in the portion allocated to Israel under the UN mandate, 8.6% of the land was owned by Jews, only 3.3% was owned by Arabs, 16.9% had been abandoned by Arab owners who didn’t want to be in an area where there were Jews and 70% was owned by the Mandatory Power [Britain in this case]. The bulk of that land had been directly transferred to the Mandatory Power’s control from the Ottoman Turks at the end of the First World War.
Much of the land owned by the Jews had actually been purchased from large (usually absentee) Arab landowners over the years who often sold the land to Jews at premium prices. Numerous studies have verified that only about 27% of the land owned by Jews in Mandate Palestine had been purchased from the Fellahin.
If you’ve any complaint about “Palestinians” being dispossessed in the period prior to Israel’s formation in 1948, it should actually be levelled at the Ottoman Turks whose feudalistic practices through taxation, absentee ownership of tenant farms, merchants and money lenders ended up displacing the Fellahin, or their fellow Arabs who were the actual owners of the land being sold, not the Jews.
 July 11, 2014 at 6:40am
o.O Hmmmm . . . In order to pull this off, the Senate needs a minimum of 67 to vote for the resolution. That means they’ll need at least 7 Republicans to join the Democrats & Independents. Then they’ll need 290 votes in the House of Representatives. That means they’ll need 89 Republicans to go for this idea. Finally, they’ll have to get 38 states to go along with this . . . . Yeah, Good Luck with that.
July 9, 2014 at 7:37am
“Observers seemed to agree that the policy was tacitly targeting black people.”
Really!?! Has anyone looked at what inner city [and some rural area] white [gangsta wannabe] kids are wearing nowadays?
 June 18, 2014 at 6:35pm
“Washington Redskins nickname is “disparaging of Native Americans”
Really? If “Redskin” is a disparaging term that needs to be dropped from the language, how about the Ohio Indian term “níkkashi n ga xí n ha-zhide” or the Quawpaw term “zho-zhitte” or the Pawnee term “cahrikspa-hat” or the Natchez term “tvmh-hakup” or the Chickasaw term Hattak Api’ Homma’”? All of these are the Native American terms, in that particular language for “Indian” and all of them literally translate as some variation of Redskin, Redman or Redflesh. Are we then going to tell Native Americans that they need to change their native languages for the term they use for themselves because the term is racist?! It seems to me that we’ve got better things to worry about than the name of a football team that uses a term that even Native Americans have built into their own languages. [See: http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
You do not seem to understand the issue at hand here...
...it is not that the American Indians are offended when other American Indians call them "Redskins"...it is that the culture that used that term as a disparaging term for them celebrates that offensive term by naming a sports team "Redskins." It is especially galling that that culture using the offensive term so happens to be the one that stole their land and attempted to commit genocide on them...