Except that does not pass the intent of the Founding Fathers.
What if Cruz becomes POTUS and a dust up occurs between the US and Canada, trade deals, business deals or what ever. Could Cruz be viewed as having a bias, perhaps a soft spot for his birth place?
Maybe he has a loyalty maybe he doesn’t, but it could easily be argued there is a conflict of interest there, something we should strive to avoid as the Founder did.
A person born to two citizen parents in this Country is no doubt a NBC, any other variance leave a doubt of loyalty and possible conflict of interest.
Great post Ron and right on target!
I believe Cruz is loyal to the US. In fact nothing in his behavior would suggest otherwise. Meanwhile most other pols in Washington serve the anti American media and the foreign interests that control the media.
Except that does not pass the intent of the Founding Fathers.
About the Founders and being NBC, they thought this... "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".
... and Cuba.
From Minor vs Happersett: "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
The job requirement is, and always has been, about presumed undivided loyalties.
Thanks for the Ping, LucyT
Of course it does.
The First Congress, which with President Washington included almost half the Signers of the Constitution, specified with absolute clarity that people born US citizens abroad - LIKE TED CRUZ - were "to be considered as natural born citizens."
Since the only legal meaning and implication of a person being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was that the person was eligible to be elected President, it is absolutely clear that they intended for such persons to be eligible.
In 1833, James Bayard - whose grandfather Richard Bassett was one of the 39 Signers of the Constitution and literally our US Senator #1, and whose father was also a Senator known to his peers as "the High Priest of the Constitution," wrote an exposition on the Constitution.
In that exposition, in the discussion on PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, he stated,
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
You couldn't say any more plainly: TED CRUZ IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.
Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was read - AND APPROVED - by the Great Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall, who dominated the Court for close to 40 years starting just a dozen or so years after the Constitution was ratified. Marshall corrected Bayard on a minor point involving Congress' authority to build roads, but said that other than that, he found nothing in Bayard's book that was not, "in my judgment, entirely just."
His exposition was also read and applauded by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, by the famous early legal expert Chancellor James Kent, and other prominent jurists.
So it is very CLEAR that the Founding Fathers did, in fact, intend for people like Ted Cruz to be eligible to be President.
I know that you and the other birthers have your theory. But history is not a matter of theory. History is a matter of FACT, and the FACTS of what our early national leaders said and did are solidly and strongly against your birther theory.