I’m not known for my clairvoyance — it would be impossible to make a living predicting what the Supreme Court will do — but as the latest round of birtherism continues into successive news cycles, I do have an odd sense of “deja vu all over again.” Two and a half years ago, I looked into Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility and rather easily came to the conclusion that, to paraphrase a recent campaign slogan, “yes, he can.” Here’s the legal analysis in a nutshell:
In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth — as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later (“naturalizes”) or who isn’t a citizen at all — can be president.
So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.
That single‐parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural‐born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.
We all know that this wouldn’t even be a story if weren’t being pushed by the current Republican frontrunner (though Cruz is beating Trump in the latest Iowa polls). Nevertheless, here we are.
For more analysis and a comprehensive set of links regarding this debate, see Jonathan Adler’s excellent coverage at the Volokh Conspiracy.