Replies

It seems clear and perfectly reasonable to me. You need to be born in the United States to parents owing no allegiance to any other sovereignty. Cruz doesn't come anywhere near fitting that definition.

I think many people are uneasy about this because it would suggest that we are not all equal and that is antithetical to what we have all been taught about America.

To them I would say, chances are, you weren't going to be POTUS anyways so relax and abide by the constitution as our founding fathers wrote it.

-- I think many people are uneasy about this because it would suggest that we are not all equal ... --

That's there too, I agree. But how does one overlook the fact that both terms, "natural born citizen" and "citizen" appear? Are they the same thing? If they aren't, then they aren't perfectly equivalent as a matter of logic.

And then there is the class of naturalized citizens. Are they second class? The answer is a resounding NO! Is a naturalized citizen qualified for the presidency?

The Supreme Court had this to say about Mr. Bellei, a citizen at birth of the US by dint of US citizen mother, alien father, and being born abroad. This was said in 1971, fairly modern case law, as far as citizenship goes.

Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with "second-class citizenship." That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship to [Mr. Bellei] was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not "second-class."

The SCOTUS went on to uphold stripping Mr. Bellei of his citizenship. The law has changed since, Cruz has no statutory duty to obtain US residency in order to keep his US citizenship, although if such a condition were in the statute, Cruz meets it, no question.

Minds are made up on the question. I see three different types of posters ...

Innocently ignorant. They believe Cruz is NBC, either haven't studied the law, or lack the intelligence to understand its language
Willfully ignorant. They believe Cruz is NBC, have been presented with clear evidence to the contrary, and on various basis cling to the position that Cruz is NBC. "Denial" might be a good word for this bunch. Situational con-law. The outcome is more important than following the constitution.
Deliberately misleading. They believe Cruz is not qualified, but stridently argue the opposite.

By this time, all the naysayers on FR are either willfully ignorant or deliberately misleading.

The idea that a child, born in a foreign country to two American citizens who intend for their child to be an American citizen, is ineligible to be president is just ludicrous, and would have disqualified John McCain, George Romney, and probably several others.

The founders pretty clearly weren't denying presidential eligibility based on a person's parents' choice of vacation destination; to say nothing of parents who were abroad in the service of the United States, as McCain's were.

Whether such a child born to ONE citizen parent is eligible is a question that would need to be clarified by legislation. Mark Levin, for one, says that it has been, and such a person is eligible. I tend to think he knows what he's talking about.