Replies

I will continue to propose that ANYONE who uses this forum to propagate the stupid idea that Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen according to the constitution be banned from this forum.

Personally, I think Ted Cruz would pass muster with the Founding Fathers with flying colors. His heart and mind are unquestioningly aligned with, and welded to this country and its Founding Ideals.

My view is that the Framers inserted the NBC clause to guard against those with divided loyalties from ever assuming the office of President. That was a wise thing to do on their part, but it was only a stop gap measure, meant to filter out those least likely to bear such an innate loyalty to America.

They couldn't know that one day, a person like Barack Obama, who shows little evidence of the desired loyalty to this country and its ideals, would one day lay claim to eligibility to the office through a tenuous connection of birth - or that a man such as Ted Cruz, who, though being born outside this country to just one American citizen parent, would be so superior in loyalty and love for this country.

Put them both before the Framers with resumes in hand, and there's no doubt that one would pass, and the other would fail their test.

All that said, there can be no doubt that there is a case to be made regarding Ted Cruz' technical eligibility to hold that office. Instead of firing cannons at those who bring up those points, I think it would be better to do your best to convince them through reason and logic.

There are plenty of people who have used reason and logic against the anti-Cruz birthers here. Unfortunately, they don't or won't even listen to any good argument, from what I've seen most of them are incapable of doing so. As Levin notes, most of them are unable to deal with debate on something, their minds are made up, and they're not going to relent. They'd rather see Hillary or Christie be President than give up their Pharisaical notions.

Thankfully, there are some birthers who will not do that. I have seen a number of them on the forum who are coming to grips with the reality of what their position will mean. The concept that Hillary or Christie have the kind of citizenship allowing them to be President and not Ted Cruz is simply inconceivable.

Here is a summary of the arguments:

1. There is no law, no precedent, case, no definition of this issue as put forth by the birthers anywhere in any court case or law. None. Zilch, zero, nada.
2. Cruz was given a US birth certificate immediately, he was not naturalized, his parents did not have to go through any unusual manner to get his citizenship, it was automatic.
3. The original intent of the issue was not to have a President with divided loyalties. Cruz has no divided loyalties toward the US founding, most of his opponents do.
4. There is a big divide in thought on the matter, some good arguments from both sides in the conservative arena, but there is no clear winner, because there is no clear court precedent. Why take someone out as good as Cruz over a difference of opinion on this niggling point?
5. Even if the birthers were right (debatable), for us to take out one of ours on a point that they ignored for two elections would be political suicide and make us the stupidest part of the stupid party.

I think there are other main points to argue, but these are what I have read. Xzins and others, kindly add other points than what I have made here. I would like to make a good, comprehensive list of the arguments that have been put forth.

Any case to be made for Cruz’s ineligibility must clear impossibly high hurdles. The only definition for the term natural-born citizen I’ve seen put forward that Cruz would meet, and is intelligible (even if preposterous), is the following: Natural Born Citizen = Everyone other than someone born in a foreign country to parents who were foreigners. How would John Jay not be repulsed by such a definition, however high a regard he would have for Cruz’s patriotism and brilliance?