Could there be a President Ted Cruz?

Statesman ^ | Aug. 7, 2012 | Ken Herman

[loucon]

Lets assume GOP nominee Ted Cruz will be Texas next U.S. senator. And lets assume he becomes a great senator and rises to the level of rumored potential national candidate (sometimes a surprisingly low hurdle).

Heres the question that would invite: Is the Canadian-born son of a Cuban-born dad and a Delaware-born mom constitutionally eligible to serve as president or vice president?

[loucon]

Just to put to bed the thought that Ted Cruz eligibility is something new. Note the date on this article. I picked this article out of several about the same topic for no reason in particular.

[knarf]

Could ?

yes

Will ?

no

[dp0622]

wow. some are OBSESSED with this issue!!!!

if one has faith in THEIR candidate, they post the great things he has said he will do when he wins.

when one has fear in their hearts over losing, one posts threads like this.

every time one of these comes up, it puts me right back to voting for Ted instead of trump.

and in the generals, well, one can get so turned off by the nonsense the other side throws at the opponent, that you vote the pro life or some other ticket.

[DiogenesLamp]

Could there be a President Ted Cruz?

It is well within the realm of possibility, and I can say unequivocally that he would be a massive improvement over the current fool who holds the office.

It would be nice for a change, to have a President that is not an idiot.

[demshateGod]

Of course it isn’t new. Donald Trump said he knows Cruz is completely eligible this summer. He had his people look into it and they said he was eligible. I wonder if he was lying then or now. Why did he change his mind? Because Cruz is looking like he can win.

[backwoods-engineer]

Lawyers can talk until they are blue in the face that Cruz is eligible six ways from Sunday, but the Low Information Voter knows none of this. If the MSNBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/NYT/LAT media cabal says that Cruz is not eligible, it become reality for the LIVs. So, if they can knock out Cruz via eligibility questions, knock out Trump by labeling him crazy, knock out Hillary via an indictment, then the Progressive elites can install the first truly communist President of the United States. And then, they will REALLY get started.

[DaveyB]

When one cannot win on substance and merit they often resort to disqualifying their rivals.

[TBP]

Under the Nationalities Act, his mother’s status as an American citizen who had been an American citizen for at lest 10 years, at lest 5 of them since the age of 14, makes her son a natural-born citizen, regardless of his place of birth.

This means Cruz is eligible regardless, but it makes 0bama’s place of birth critical, since his mom was only 18 when he was born, and therefore could not have been a citizen for at least five years after the age of 14.

Mark Levin explained all this a week or so ago.

This entire issue is a distraction to keep us from discussing actual issues. it shows how afraid of Cruz the Establishment and the Trumpkins are. They know that if their candidates’ records are exposed, they’ll lose.

[heights]

No. Within a week of getting the nomination, both Cruz and his father would be Palinized . SNL would have a field day, they would be scorned and hated. So no, he will not be President.

[Responsibility2nd]

Oh Goody. Another “Is Cruz eligible?” thread.

Only 2 reasons why this is being discussed.

1. People are too stupid to know that yes; he’s eligible.
2. People are desperately agitating against Cruz (Jebbies, most likely).

[demshateGod]

Then we can get started.

[loucon]

To all you who are re-hashing the eligibility issue, LOOK AT THE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE. That was my only point!

[apocalypto]

Whatever the reason, it is best to get the issue out of the way now than later.

[txrangerette]

“It’s dead, Jim”

It was dead then, it’s dead now, it will remain dead.

But don’t try to tell Trump.

He doesn’t know.

He doesn’t want to know.

But keeps yakking, making insinuations such as, “I thought to be natural born you should be born in the country”. “A lot of people think that”. “We don’t know”. “What is natural born?” “He needs to take care of it”.

And on and on and on and on.

A cartoon of Trump would be perfect if he’s got his eyes covered up and his ears plugged.

Trump has no excuse.

How gutless to run around ramping up worry that a LAWSUIT will control everything and ruin Ted Cruz.

Trump cartooned where he’s cringing and cowering in fear to a LAWSUIT bogeyman, but not fear for himself, oh no, but fear on behalf of Ted Cruz.

LAWSUIT-A-PHOBIA.

And that’s why, people, you must not vote for Ted Cruz.

I, Trump the Great, have spoken.

(Me to Trump: Shut up.)

[demshateGod]

Trumpkin was the noble dwarf in Prince Caspian. It just doesn’t fit him. Trump is an Oompa Loompa.

[skeeter]

Its become farcical.

Always the same old crowd.

They get beat down on one thread, then immediately start another.

[demshateGod]

You know that’s not what’s going to happen. The Rats will have Trump, Paul, Coulter, and all the other conmen’s words to beat Cruz over the head with.

[Yosemitest]

What a HOOT !

Do they really think that the United States Supreme Court is going to REVERSE their PREVIOUS RULINGS ? ! ? ! ? !

Take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States and our Founding Fathers.

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Also notice that the United States Supreme Court has backed up that definition!

See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV)

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

So the statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

[TBP]

Hey, nothing wrong with Oompa Loompas. I like them.

[TBP]

Trumpkin was the noble dwarf in Prince Caspian.

So why do so many of the Trumpfolk here regard it as an insult?