Ted Cruz's team says this is the proof that he can run for US president despite his Canadian roots

Business Insider ^ | March 30, 2015 | Hunter Walker

[2ndDivisionVet]

According to his campaign team, two top lawyers definitively settled the question of whether Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is eligible to run for US president with an article published in the Harvard Law Review earlier this month.

In an email to Business Insider last week, Cruz's senior adviser Catherine Frazier said the campaign is pointing any reporters who ask about Cruz's eligibility to the March 11 article by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement.

"Any coverage on this issue should include the Harvard Law Review article by Katyal and Clement," Frazier wrote.

Questions have been raised about Cruz's eligibility as he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban-born father.

Most experts agree his mother's American citizenship makes him a "natural born citizen," which is one of the constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility. But in an analysis of the issue published by Politifact in 2013, they concluded there is the "tiniest sliver of uncertainty" about whether Cruz is legally eligible to be president, because the phrase "natural born citizen" has never been explicitly defined by a Constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling.

In their article, Katyal and Clement argue that there is no uncertainty whatsoever about whether children of American citizens who were born abroad are "natural born citizens."

Both Katyal and Clement have served as the acting solicitor general of the US. Katyal held the post in the administration of President Barack Obama while Clement served under President George W. Bush. They began their article by noting that they may have different political views but are in complete agreement about the definition of a "natural born citizen."(continued)

[MeganC]

The Harvard Law Review lost all credibility when they made Barry “Choom Gang” Obama their editor.

[Mr. K]

There are ALREADY more stories about Cruz’s eligibility than they have yet had about Obama’s.

And Cruz hasn’t even submitted fake birth certificates!

[Michael.SF.]

If Cruz is the nominee there will be a case that goes to SCOTUS.

All of a sudden. "standing" will be a forgotten term.

If the Dems are stupid, it will be after the election (making the VP elect the President?)

If they are not quite as stupid, they will wait until he appears to be the nominee.

[hlmencken3]

I’d guess the SC would defer to the 50 Secretaries of State, the Electoral College, and Congressional certification of the election. The SC doesn’t want a “penumbra” here and the Constitutional language isn’t clear enough for interference.

[Don Corleone]

According to the Haaaavaaad Review just like with voting, anyone living or dead can run for president now.

[iowacornman]

I hate to say this because I love the guy. Here is how the judicial system works ,for those in Loma linda. You have lawyers on one side and lawyers on the other side who present a case to a judge ( or in this case the SCOTUS) . The lawyer don’t decide!! What a joke this article is. Let us proceed to SCOTUS now before we spend our money and time.

[JimSEA]

At least they maintained some credibility in that they never published an article by Obama.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I knew it was going to be you before I looked up to see the poster’s screen name.

[Maelstorm]

Cruz’s mother was a citizen and that is enough for me. My problem with Obama was not whether he was a citizen but why there was all the subterfuge around his birth certificate and his school records. I still believe the man is hiding something significant. I personally think it probably has something to do with him falsely claiming foreign birth/citizenship in order to get some kind of special treatment or benefit. There is definitely a mystery there.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/05/17/the-vetting-barack-obama-literary-agent-1991-born-in-kenya-raised-indonesia-hawaii/

[X-spurt]

Let us proceed to SCOTUS now

That is just not how it works. The SCOTUS, under the Constitution, can only take cases up from the Court and Appeal process.

Due to NBC being so ill defined within the Constitution, SCOTUS is unlikely to touch NBC. This is one of those “honorable person” things, the Founders saw as more common-place than maybe today.

[iowacornman]

Well, you are right. It needs to start now as a declaratory judgment in a friendly court to Cruz, like judge Hanen in San Antonio. Then whisk it of to 5th circuit and hope for a win. Then Scotus where I assure you it is a 5 to 4 loss unless Roberts is not compromised again. My opinion is irrelevant. I know this— “natural born” does not mean “no Cesarian”.

[PghBaldy]

In a perfect world, neither Cruz or Obama would never be considered. It should be two citizen parents, period. Something is very odd how we’ve suddenly had so many born outside the US, or with dual citizenship, running for office the last few elections. Just very odd, and it can’t be a coincidence.

[Godebert]

But in an analysis of the issue published by Politifact in 2013, they concluded there is the "tiniest sliver of uncertainty" about whether Cruz is legally eligible to be president, because the phrase "natural born citizen" has never been explicitly defined by a Constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling.

Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution can interpret themselves, nor is the Declaration the ultimate standard for interpreting the Constitution. The laws of nature and of nature's God are the standard. The Declaration, however, clearly articulates principles of that law and the Constitution reflects the practical interweaving of those principles in its provisions. Without the immutable laws of nature and of nature's God as an interpretive guide, however, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution lose their moral force.

On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the inauguration of George Washington, President John Quincy Adams noted:

"The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government . . . . (yet) even in our own country, there are still philosophers who deny the principles asserted in the Declaration as self-evident truths.

By invoking the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow. The theory of freedom adopted was simply that God's law was supreme and gave freedom. The phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" referred to the laws that God in his capacity as the Creator of the universe had established for the governance of people, nations and nature. These laws are variously described as the laws of Creation, God's Creation laws or as the framers elected to refer to them, as the laws of nature and of nature's God. This body of law, whatever it is called, can be ascertained by people through an examination of God's creation, the text of the Bible, and to a certain degree, instinct or reason.

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History