Cruz likely eligible to be President

Big Givernment ^ | March 11 | Ken Klukowski

[Fai Mao]

On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.

Cameron added, “But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible” to run for president. While many people assume that, it’s probably not true.

Cameron was referring to the Constitution’s Article II requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can run for the White House.

No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasn’t clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.

[JCBreckenridge]

Exactly. Thank you. Sanity prevails.

[Jeff Winston]

Some of these people think if George and Martha Washington crossed into Canada and she gave birth, their child would be rendered ineligible. Ridiculous.

But... but... but... natural born citizen takes birth on US soil AND citizen parents.

It's a HIGHER form of citizenship! And it's the HIGHEST form of citizenship that's required in order to be a NATURAL BORN citizen.

And Ted Cruz, even if he HAD been born in AMERICA, just isn't American enough. We need someone like... well, like Hillary Clinton, for example. SHE's eligible.

Now if Ted's dad had taken the oath of citizenship, and if Ted had been born in... Peoria, and if he doesn't have any grandparents on either side who came from countries that extend automatic citizenship to their grandchildren, and if he's never married a foreigner whose country gives automatic citizenship to spouses... well, THEN he could be American enough to be eligible.

Maybe. If we decide he is.

[Jeff Winston]

What motivates you to be so interested in persuading those whom are conceivably, unpersuadable?

I'm really not so interested in persuading the unpersuadable.

I completely accept that 95% of those posting as birthers on these threads would not be convinced if God himself came down in a great orb of light and told them that "natural born citizen" never required citizen parents for anyone born on US soil.

Do you know what they would say? "Nice visual effects," they would say. "But you can't fool us. You're nothing but a troll."

I suppose my motivation stems from two things. First, those who will be fooled into believing their nonsense if someone doesn't stand up and speak the truth. And secondly, I just don't like lies and misconceptions masquerading as truth.

[Jeff Winston]

They won't believe the clear words of the United States Supreme Court.

They won't believe people like President Ronald Reagan's Attorney General, who said:

"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President."

They won't believe the Heritage Foundation.

They won't believe Constitutional experts like Mark Levin (who publicly noted that Marco Rubio was eligible).

They won't believe National Review.

They won't believe other folks like Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (a reasonably conservative Justice who was a Reagan appointee to the Court).

They won't believe Father of the Constitution James Madison, who said place of birth was what counted when it came to citizenship.

They won't believe William Rawle, who sat and discussed politics and law with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin on a regular basis.

They won't believe St. George Tucker, or Joseph Story, or Chancellor James Kent, or any of the great legal expert from early in our nation's history.

Why would they believe God?

[Fai Mao]

Actually, I’ve been inside several embassies they do not have maternity wards at least not that I’ve ever seen. I lived in Asia for many years and the wives or employees of the embassies did use local hospitals in Hong Kong for child birth - at least the one that I know about.

This was the issue with McCain, he was born in a local hospital not the base hospital but the ruling was that he IS a Natural Born citizen. That said the issue might be that military and diplomatic personal are considered to be a type of “special case”

But generally, I think Mr Cruz would have a better claim to being natural born - even though he was born in Canada - than either an “Anchor Baby” or someone born in the US with only one parent as a citizen but then grew up in Indonesia.

He actually grew up in the US. This is why I laugh at the claim Barrack Obama is an African American. He knows nothing about the struggles and experiences of blacks in the US unless he read it in a book. He was, to take him at his word, born in Hawaii to a white mother. His father was from Kenya, then after the divorce his mother moved him to Indonesia. After that he lived in a lily white area of US mid-West. He has a about as much first hand knowledge of what it means to be black in the US as the average Austrian or Indonesian. Culturally, I am probably blacker than he is having grown up in Alabama.

The wording of the Constitution is vague therefore the argument is semantic, interpreting what a couple of words mean. Well, I believe the founding fathers left the words vague on purpose because they knew that it is impossible to try and anticipate every situation but they knew that reasonable people could see that the spirit of the law was obeyed even if it is impossible to list all possibilities in statute.

The issue, as I see it: Is this person an American? Is the US where his allegiance lies? That is what is actually meant by Natural Born. His mother was a citizen, his father became one, Mr Cruz grew up in the US. He understands what the US is, he exemplifies and promotes what it means to be an American. I think that is what is meant in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers did not want a person who was an adult immigrant elected to the office because they did not want a person with the ambition to become a king or emperor; or more insidiously someone who was an agent of a foreign government

If Mr Cruz had come to the US as a teenager then the argument could be adequately made that he was not eligible. If he’d ever held a non-US passport or claimed non-US citizenship then he would not be qualified. If he hadn’t grown up in the US the argument could also be made.

He is not and has never claimed to be a citizen of another country. Just because Canada or even Cuba might claim him does not mean he ever claimed them. Think of the problem that would cause. All the Cuban would have to do to keep a Republican from being elected was to say “We grant this person Cuban Citizenship” and mail the passport against their will. To be a dual citizen the person must claim to be a citizen of two countries, Mr Cruz has never done that. He has lived in the US since he was small child. He has no other allegiance to a “foreign prince”

In common law the law, (as I understand it) is what the population thinks it is. It is precedent, but the precedent is not set in stone and admits that extenuating circumstances matter. The jury has a right to apply the law to the situation at hand using precedent as a guide. That is the idea of a jury of peers rather than of a legal code. I think given the evidence that Mr Cruz IS in his heart of hearts an American the verdict would be overwhelmingly in favor of saying yes, he is natural born.

The law should not prevent us from doing what is right. By using a tortured semantic argument to deny that an American is an American people are turning good into evil and delivering the nation to those who would harm it.

I am making a natural law argument because I think that is what the Founding Father’s did and why the left apparent wiggle room in the Constitution.

The question is, which is more important, a tortured definition of citizenship or looking at a person’s ethics, morality, honesty, patriotism and ability to accomplish the job?

I would argue Mr Cruz has a greater case to run for President than I do. I was born in the US state of Alabama and both my parents were US citizens at the time. My family had been in the US since the 1630’s. I am a Natural Born Citizen but my wife is Chinese and works for the Chinese government (No neither she nor I are Communist). That tie I believe should disqualify me far more for the office of President than the fact that Mr. Cruz was born to US citizen mother who was temporarily living in Canada. It would I think disqualify my children as well.

Just my thoughts

I have the asbestos shirt on go ahead flame away

[notted]

“Why would they believe God?”

Not sure where you are going with that.

The only opinion with merit regarding the eligibility of the POTUS is the opinion of the SCOTUS. My question to you is; why do you care what [we birthers] think?

[notted]

“I suppose my motivation stems from two things. First, those who will be fooled into believing their nonsense if someone doesn’t stand up and speak the truth. And secondly, I just don’t like lies and misconceptions masquerading as truth.”

Previous post. My bad, time lag. Understood. Very commendable. Nevertheless, with no disrespect, I would like this to be settled in a court of law where well established rules are respected.

[noinfringers2]

I’m beginning to believe that for some people who have a particular favorite person that once out of the womb and breathing a child is/was ‘natural born’ even for eligibility for POTUSA.

[Jeff Winston]

Nevertheless, with no disrespect, I would like this to be settled in a court of law where well established rules are respected.

Several courts of law have ruled recently that the child-born-on-US-soil question is settled. I forget how many. Something like half a dozen. They have all unanimously agreed with each other - and with my own analysis, by the way - that the Supreme Court decided the issue in US v. Wong Kim Ark.

So it actually has been settled in a court of law. Not just once, but at least half a dozen times.

At least one or two of those rulings have been appealed all the way up to the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has declined, without comment, to hear the appeal(s).

Now... the next question that might occur to you is, "Why would the US Supreme Court simply refuse to hear an appeal on a Constitutional question as important as Presidential eligibility?"

There are two obvious answers to this question. One is the answer that is obvious to most people. And that is: Everyone on the Supreme Court agrees with all of the lower courts that the issue has been decided for over 100 years.

The answer is obvious to the conspiracy-minded is... well, it's part of the conspiracy!

They fear Obama. They've been threatened. They've been bribed. They're in the tank for Obama. They don't want to create waves.

Like the rest of the theory, this isn't in touch with reality. A fair portion of the current Supreme Court bench can't stand Obama any better than you or I can. Heck, THREE JUSTICES, all of them conservatives, very conspicuously refused to even show up for Obama's State of the Union Address, which Scalia PUBLICLY called "a childish spectacle."

There is a certain degree of decorum that attends the Supreme Court. For a sitting Supreme Court Justice to call the President's State of the Union Address "a childish spectacle" is a SURE sign there's some really bad blood going on there.

So we know there are three conservative Justices who really don't like Obama. It would only take those three, and one other (and there are a couple of other obvious choices on the bench) to get a case in for review.

The real answer, really, is the first one. The Court agrees with all the lower courts that they settled the issue more than 100 years ago.

So we have a situation where the issue has already been settled by the courts, but we have people who won't recognize that. That's a problem, and it's a problem that hurts conservatives. Because here we have a decent candidate like Ted Cruz, and conservatives are needlessly fighting over whether he is eligible, when he is.

Of course, in Cruz's case, the Court actually might hear that case, because it's the one that hasn't been definitively settled. That of children born US citizens outside of the country.

I for one would like to see the Court take that case. But that will never happen until someone like Cruz actually runs.

[Jeff Winston]

You know, another thing that sometimes happens by my participating in these threads is that I sometimes run into somebody with whom I may have differences of opinion, but who actually seems sane.

In spite of having identified yourself as a “birther,” for example, you seem sane. So far, at least. Of course, I’ve had conversations start fine and go bad before, but so far, you seem nothing like some of the nutters on these threads.

[octex]

Seems to me that the term Natural Born Citizen plainly means that you were born in the United States of America.
Was Cruz really born in Canada?
******************************************
From what I’ve read in various places, his parents were residents in the USA and were in Canada on a business trip when Ted was born. ...Thus, he was born subject to the jurisdiction of the USA though not on US soil and his mother was a US citizen; father a dry-foot Cuban.

Same applied to McCain and to all children born in foreign countries when a US citizen parent is deployed there in a diplomatic or military role.

Likewise, Bronco Bama’s father was a Kenyan-British citizen and his mother a US citizen. ....Precedent was set.

[LucyT]

.

tag team trolls

Thanks, Las Vegas Ron. Why do they care what we think?

.

[noinfringers2]

My look up on Cruz is that he was born of a Cuban father who initially fought in the revolution with Castro. He later broke from Castro. He married a USA citizen and the two worked in Canada for 4 years apart from any USA duties or involvement and it was where /when Cruz was born. The family returned to the USA and the father was not naturalized a USA citizen at the time. For me Cruz does not meet the eligibility requirements for POTUSA. This is probably a good example of good persons not satisfying the Founder’s intentions but also that the Founders were very determined to have POTUSA not have the least bit of ties that could impair allegiance to their USA Constitution. My brother, killed in WWII, and I who served in WWII are in a very similar fix as to similar eligibility. No loss of desire of serving the USA because of our situation.

[rxsid]

Seriously people. What's going on here? Does the Constitution still matter?

The facts:

Sen. Cruz was born in a foreign country.

His mother was a U.S. citizen when Ted was born.

Since Ted Cruz was born in another country, it took a Congressional statue for his mother to pass US citizenship to him.

Congress (only) has the power of "naturalization" per our Constitution.

Ted Cruz is a "naturalized" citizen from birth (because his birth citizenship relies on a Congressional statue from that period of time).

Fine, he can be a Senator, a Rep, a Govenor and so on. But.. Ted Cruz is most definitely not a "natural born Citizen" since Congress can not declare such on their own (absent participation in an amendment).

Sen. Ted Cruz has been a great Senator to date, I'm sure he'll continue to be so. But enough already with this absurd notion that he's a "natural born Citizen." The Constitution mandates a POTUS (& VPUTOS) be one.

No more usurpers.

[rxsid]

"Seems to me that the term Natural Born Citizen plainly means that you were born in the United States of America."

Do you honestly believe that the framers intended for foreign royalty to be eligible not only to the thrones of their fathers (parents) foreign country but also the Commander in Chief of our country?

The current reigning King of Thailand was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States 1927. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej#Early_life

If simply being born in the U.S. is enough to be considered a "natural born Citizen", then the current Dauphin of France (as considered by the Legitimists) Prince Louis Duke of Burgundy would be considered POTUS eligible.

French Royal Family
Legitimist

Prince Louis was born in New York City, 2010. Yet, his father is a French and Spanish citizen (but not a U.S. citizen) and his mother is Venezuelan.

If the French decided to have another restoration of the House of Burbon, the King of France would be considered POTUS eligible.
Or, if Louis Alphonse were to be elected POTUS 1st...and then the French decided to restore the crown...wow!

Imagine that. The King of France and the President of the U.S. as one in the same.

Clearly an offense to the founding generation.

[antceecee]

Hit my ‘like’ button on that one!

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"your humor dwarfs me but at least im not a troll or a fairy or some other godmotherless hething."

Domo for the new tagline.

[Joe Boucher]

If this mooselimb fag from Kenya is elegible than a Canadian goose is too

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"It's pretty obvious that you didn't read the article, as evidenced by your utter lack of a substantive rebuttal."

Boom!

Absolutely laid in the path of certain participants/followers of an earlier thread the Sourcery post. No response/rebuttal action at all.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"No more usurpers."

Okay, that didn't take long for a new tagline to assert itself. Think I'll keep this one for awhile.