Posted on 01/10/2016 7:36:03 AM PST by jimbo123
Article II of the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President." Donald Trump thinks Sen. Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen" and that he is therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president. Is Trump right? Cruz was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada, to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father. As to his Article II status, it's all in how you read the Constitution.
There are three leading theories of how to interpret the Constitution today. One is textualism: the Constitution means what its words say. The historical context of the words is important when a modern plain meaning is not self-evident. A second theory, adopted by many liberals, relies on a "living Constitution": the Constitution means what is most consistent with fundamental constitutional values as applied to present circumstances. The third theory, championed by many leading conservatives, is originalism: The Constitution means what ordinary people would have understood it to mean at the time it was ratified, which is 1788.
Under either a textualist or a "living Constitution" theory, Cruz is a "natural born Citizen," eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn't. It's the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.
To an originalist, a "natural born Citizen" is a person who is a citizen of the United States under "natural" principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli - the law of soil - was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England,
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
If Trump believes that Cruz is natural born according to this definition then a VP slot is out!
But Attorney General is NOT.
This guy is a Professor. Here is what I find interesting:
“The 1790 statute, however, was not intended to address presidential eligibility. Rather, like earlier English statutes that referred to “natural born subjects,†it exempted children born abroad from the need to follow any other procedures (“to naturalizeâ€) in order to be considered citizens. Then in 1940, Congress passed a statute dispensing with the need for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother to naturalize.”
Why did he gloss over what happened in 1795???
I consider James Madison to be one of the most , if not the most, important Founding Father.
James Madison chaired the committee that wrote the 1795 Act.
They did not include the words natural born citizen in that Act that repealed the 1790 Act.
Why? No one knows. Some think it is because he recognized the mistake they made. Others think it is because he was a proponent of States Rights.
Whatever the case, they took it out. There is a reason for taking it out. You can’t quote the 1790 Act without admitting that it was repealed with the words taken out.
And a set on the SC is not out either.
set=seat
But I thought Ted was a Constitutional genius?
Wait, didn’t they say that about another freshman Senator who ran for president with a questionable birth history?
Yes I think you can assume Don is not considering ted for shotgun.
But if they are going to go after Cruz they need to go after Rubio who is basically an anchor baby.
Amazing how now that it’s Cruz the right winger at issue, we get all of this dispassionate, well-researched journalism on the question of the natural born citizenship clause. When it was Obama, it was just screaming racism at anyone who dared to even raise it. But this article does a good job of establishing pretty clearly that according to the original understanding of that clause, Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, and that they only way that this understanding will have any effect in the world is through the ballot box.
Personally, I don’t want Cruz ended for *this*. I want Trump to beat him fair and square and I hope that they can get along after.
But this subject bothers me very much.
The Natural Born Citizen requirement in the Constitution implies that the requirement is higher for the POTUS than anyone else has to meet to be a ‘citizen’.
The fact that Cruz was a dual citizen until right before he ran means that he only meets the basic requirements to be a citizen.
All-in-all, where Cruz is concerned, this isn’t troubling. What IS troubling are the implications for future presidents. If any ‘citizen’ can run for POTUS, that means that we could end up with a true Manchurian Candidate in the near future. (The Birthers think that this has already happened with Obama.)
This isn’t a small issue and can’t be swept under the rug.
The article is correct that Cruz claims to be a Constitutional Originalist and that, by HIS definition, he’s not qualified. I don’t like the hypocrisy here.
This is serious.
Its a question that demands a definitive and binding answer.
I don’t think an originalist view would say he’s not a natural born citizen. But I do think that we could find out because Scalia is an originalist when it comes to constitutional interpretation and I think the Court will have to rule on this. I would suggest that someone put the issue in front of the courts now.
And go after Obama, but we know that will never happen.
Interesting how the worm turns.
I never really thought much about this until I started seeing some of the legal opinions and definitions of Jus Soli versus Jus Sanguinis.
Cruz as a constitutional lawyer needs to be more serious in addressing this question and I never really had questions about his eligibility until now.
LA Times, shill for the illegal alien population, suddenly is concerned about the letter of the Constitution.
Ted Cruz 2016. For me there is no second choice. Good try. Never vote for Trump. He is no different than Hillary or the rest of the Rinos.
LA Times is hypocritical for sure, but Cruz owes it to us to get serious about this issue and not smugly dismiss it out of hand.
If there are prohibitions on Presidential eligibility for any US Citizen (born of 1 or 2 citizens, naturalized etc.,) then we do, in fact, have millions of second class citizens.
Time to erase this inequality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.