Posted on 01/12/2016 10:09:44 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
The Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of President." The concept of "natural born" comes from the common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition. On this subject, the common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while aliens are "such as are born out of it."
. . .
Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator's parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth.
Laws do not change the Constitution, only Constitutional Amendments do that, has there been one of those?
That is the point! He SHOULD NOT have been eligible much less elected!
The better to spam threads with? ;-)
Sorry, but I post negative things on Cruz. I support him but I’ve been disappointed in things he’s said and done. I also support many of the things said by Donald Trump. In a general way I also agree with many things said by other Republican candidates.
But I don’t for a second - for even the slightest moment - believe that the Washington Post writer here is interested in the law and the truth.
I’ve watched over the years how the media contorts the truth and the law to fit whatever suits the secular humanist agenda, and whatever they can get away with.
Having lived through part of the Cold War era, where free speech was treated as most important because, at least in part, of the ongoing lesson of totalitarian communist societies stifling speech, it’s sobering to see now how much the media and leftists outright craft the news by picking and choosing and spinning, while saying Christians and conservatives live in “fact-free zones.”
And from not infrequently engaging with secular humanists on a variety of subjects over many years now, I’ve slowly become convinced that truth doesn’t matter to them, but instead POWER and IMPOSING what THEY think is right by whatever means necessary.
Real discussion is their enemy.
They will never, ever concede even the smallest point on anything, all the while hostilely smearing you as this or that from the secular humanist narrative on Bible-believing Christians and Republicans.
They don’t want truth, but to WIN, as Bill Clinton famously said.
From the U.S. Constitution:
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident.
.
Bottom line: Cruz is eligible.
I think it was Justice Stevens that brought this up in oral argument and got laughter in response as he was making a joke.
Considering that this opinion comes from the site owner, I would venture to say that it's definitive.
Now run along and get back to kowtowing at the Altar of Trump.
Baloney. 1790 law was bn error. 1795 took care of that!
More Vattel nonsense that never made it into the text of the Constitution...it’s amazing how this guy has suddenly become so popular this week.
He has no more authority on this topic as to whether it is settled law than anyone else. It is JUST HIS OPINION.
And for the RECORD, my opinion on this has not changed since 2008 no matter who is the subject of the topic.
For the most part, I never even state what I think it should be. Mostly, I state fact of things that have happened.
Was the term “natural born citizen” defined in the Constitution?
Well, apparently you are wrong, since Cruz is running.
You CAN'T believe that he and a myriad of lawyers haven't already vetted this issue.
Well, maybe you can believe it.
Your constitution isn’t followed anymore. Better fight to win.
.........................................................
Fighting to Win is IMO, Fighting to Force that the Constitution be obeyed. If you are an American, the Constitution is the only thing that protects you from a dictator. Give up one thing and you give up them all. ALL the Freedoms innumerated in the constitution are at stake.
Exactly!
“With all their Hockey Hullabaloo.....”
You are 100% correct.
THANK you.
Yeah, but it’s too late to do anything about BHO.
Besides there is a difference. BHO claims to have been born in Hawaii to one citizen parent. Cruz was born in Canada to one citizen parent. McCain was born on a US military base in Panama to two citizen parents.
Your reasoning is flawed, check 1795. Cruz is NOT eligible.
Here’s how SCOTUS would rule:
Neither voters nor opposing candidates have standing to challenge any presidential candidate’s eligibility in court. And the courts have no jurisdiction. The only institution with authority is the Electoral College.
But the electors don’t need to go to the courts anyway as they are already given broad powers - even to the extreme case of voting for a different candidate than the winner of the individual elector’s state (for most states).
Well within such broad powers is the authority to resolve ambiguity in the Constitution’s definition of natural born citizen. If electors decide a candidate doesn’t meet the requirement, they are free to vote for another candidate. If this results in no candidate having a majority of electoral votes, the Constitution provides that the state delegations in the House of Representatives elect the president.
Consider a hypothetical: what if the fatherhood of a foreign born candidate is in doubt - say in the case of in vitro fertilization where the records were lost, destroyed, or dubious, but there was a strong suggestion the father was foreign born (and the mother was natural born by the most stringent definition).
The individual electors are empowered by the Constitution to either vote for or against this candidate, not based on evidence, but on their own belief. As above, no court would have the authority to hear the case.
The Founders provided a safety valve in the form of the individual judgment of the members of the Electoral College - not lawyers, statutes, legal tracts, or judges. They knew the will of The People of a republic would be in better hands that way.
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.