Replies

Do you honestly believe that liberal activist judges are going to avoid the argument the way that conservative judges have?

1) The Republicans, and conservative judges avoided the issue out of fear of being called racists, liberal judges do not have that concern.

2) Obama provided a birth certificate showing that he has born in the State of Hawaii.

All a liberal judge has to do is cite SCOTUS precedent of Minor v. Happersett

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

So, the court determined that Minor did not become a US Citizen as a result of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, because she was already a citizen, because she was what the Constitution recognized as a "natural-born citizen".

Some argue that the above is not precedent, and was merely dicta, but that is clearly not the case. How is that known? Because the SCOTUS cites that part of the ruling in another case it heard - Ex Parte Lockwood. In Minor the SCOTUS construed the legal term-of-art natural-born Citizen, and in Ex parte Lockwood the Court cites it;

"In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution."

If Cruz does run, I believe there is a 100% chance that a liberal judge will rule him ineligible. They will argue that since Obama was born in Hawaii, and his mom was a Citizen, he fits the definition, but since Cruz was born in Canada, he does not.

The above is not what I want to see happen, but as conservatives we do not have 1) the race card to avoid scrutiny, and 2) the media to bury it's head in the sand. If Cruz runs, and get the nomination, you will first see legal analysts on every liberal news outlet citing the above cases, and declaring him ineligible. And then a liberal judge will rule that yes, he is ineligible.