Posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:04 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Since Canadian born Ted Cruz has emerged on the scene in Washington as a future presidential candidate for 2016, attention has turned to whether he is Constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1, the presidential qualification clause. This is what we know. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Many say that disqualifies him to be eligible for the presidency. Enter former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. She was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I came across an interview she did with Fox News's Chris Wallace in February of 2010. During the interview Wallace brought up the fact that since she was born in Canada, she wasn't eligible to be president. Here is the transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/21/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-future-gop/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529
"GRANHOLM: No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment. December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.
WALLACE: Yes, that’s true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.
GRANHOLM: I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship.”
With that said, I went to the biography of Jennifer Granholm and found that she was born to one American citizen and is indeed a dual Citizen who became 'NATURALIZED' as a U.S. Citizen in 1980 at the age of 21. Now this raises a question. How can a naturalized U.S. Citizen become president of the United States?
Continued below.
“I have presented fact and sources. I have presented law.”
Really?
where
Please repost these ‘ facts” and sources and law
There is NO current law or policy which states that Cruz would not be considered natural born for the purposes of running for POTUS.
See post 237.
Is there a specific point you contest?
Odd, I have seen no evidence ever of any comment on FR disparaging any candidate because of a Mexican or other “Hispanic” looking name.
Example: For a while, a lot of people liked Rubio (depsite his “Hispanc” name and Cuban ethnicity! Amazing!) and then people started to DISlike him because of his pro-illegal/amnesty views!
NOT racism.
You find me an example of comments on FR hating or disliking candidates because of race or ethnicity if you want to make accusations like that!
I am familiar with many of the names who concerned about Cruz’ elibility and wondering if he has presidential ambitions and BY GOD! I don’t see one troll!
An OBSCURE legal technicality? So just rip up the entire Constitution because if you p*** on one part, you might as well p*** on the whole thing, because that is will will happen. IMHO, those advocating to forget about the “legal technicalities” in the Constitution are repeating a leftist message - they hate the Constitution and want to “reform” it.
YOUR calling an important part of the COnstitution “obscure legal technicality” makes YOU sound like a troll!
I know for a GD fact that some on this thread are 0bot trolls and the very reason they are pushing that Cruz is eligible is to give their boy breathing room.
We’re supposed to be a national of the rule of law, not power and party trumping all. THAT is the conservative position. Not “my guy can bend or break the rules and laws because he’s my guy”! THAT in a nutshell is the leftist methods, and then when they’re in power, they can CHANGE the laws (which is exactly what they want to do to the Constitution).
And now you have the audacity to make the claim that people on FR are RACISTS and don’t want a candidate because of his ethnic backgound!
You ARE insane.
Thank you for your comments - Someone last night (sheesh, I stayed up way to late) posted a link wherein Cruz supposedly said something about being eligible - I clicked the link, read the whole article, and he said nothing of the kind! Although the headline “said” it...
So very possibly you are correct and I do hope so. Because he’s very good so far - and he knows his Constitution from my lowly vantage point.
Unlike a bunch on this these threads!
Bending the rules because he’s good is leftist garbage.
Context? Meaning unclear.
Cruz’ father did not naturalize as a US citizen until 2005.
He was a Cuban national when Cruz was born.
yes
reread your own “fact”
Cruz mother fits well within the parameters of the current laws
‘(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years
BUT more importantly Cruz fits into the laws applicable at the time of his birth
here
http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html
applicable
What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?
Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.
When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.”
A citizen at birth by statute is not a natural born citizen.
Congressional power vis-a-vis citizenship extends to naturalization only. Any citizen by statute is naturalized.
Personally, I see it as a fight to uphold the Constitution as it was designed and intended, and a fight to maintain integrity, my own and the nation's, even or especially if that means losing fights over/to political expediency.
Many who would fight against the demonrats running/electing obama because he was ineligible, now will run Cruz. That lacks integrity, but I understand that not all see it that way.
Once upon a time, before Clinton taught us the many meanings of "is", we, the public, were less lawyerly about meaning.
Now, things mean whatever you want them to in the moment. This trend will end badly.
Natural born does not equal Native born. They describe similar things, but are different, both when the Constitution was written and now.
If you want them to be the same legally? Then, amend the Constitution with integrity, not like this.
As good a guy as Senator Cruz is and as staunch a conservative, he’s still a politician and by not clarifying whether he was calling himself a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen, he kind of “weasel worded” his way around the key issue. There will be plenty of opportunities to follow-up with him and clarify exactly what he was saying. Senator Cruz can certainly take the initiative and state categorically that he does NOT consider himself to be eligible. Thus far he hasn’t done that. As I read the article, he certainly left the impression that he considers himself to be a natural born citizen but he has no interest in running for that office at this time.
There are two categories of U.S. citizens: (1) Citizen of the United States At Birth; and (2) Naturalized United States Citizen.
Since Naturalized United States Citizens are barred from eligibility to be President or Vice President, the terms “Natural Born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States at Birth” have the same requirements.
This
‘A citizen at birth by statute is not a natural born citizen.”
is truly stupid
What do you call the sentence that says a child born to 2 US citizens is a US citizen?
Hint a statute
Senator Ted Cruz is a US citizen by virtue of both the policy in effect at the time of his birth and by the policy in effect now.
You can be angry and outraged all you want but there is NO US legal definition of natural born citizen.
I agree that there should be but reality is there is not
use your energy for something you can have an effect on.
If you don’t like the idea of Cruz running ( which is just an idea) how do you feel about 0dumbo in his second term?
What did you do about him being allowed to run?
“the terms ‘Natural Born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen of the United States at Birth’ have the same requirements.”
A naturalized citizen may be a citizen at birth, your assertion is incorrect.
Congressional power vis-a-vis citizenship extends to naturalization only, any citizen whose citizenship is dependent on statute is a naturalized citizen.
Derivative citizenship, the situation where a person born abroad acquires U.S. citizenship through their parents, is naturalization.
A 6-month old troll trying to sow dissension on a settled issue. Right.
You’re starting to haz a smell, too.
I have no anger or outrage regarding Cruz.
Whether there is a “US legal definition of natural born citizen” is immaterial to Cruz’s ineligibility, he is a naturalized citizen.
Perhaps I missed the intent of your post because I was a long time aware that Cruz’s mother was a USA citizen. However, your harsh response brings to the front of the discussion that Cruz’s father was a citizen of Cuba. As such your position seems to be that the father’s citizenship/national allegiance has no bearing on a child’s citizenship at time of birth, only the mother’s is controlling. I don’t believe a parental division is valid. As to another fact, Cruz was born in Canada and though some persons will argue that such has no bearing as to eligibility for POTUSA the fact that the father was not a USA citizen makes this a double whamy against eligibility for POTUSA. Having made my comment I believe that as of today Cruz has shown himself to be a person who believes in our Constitution and as such would serve the USA very well in some top level government executive position. In fact he seems to be so much better than Vatican Banker Roberts.
’ As such your position seems to be that the father’s citizenship/national allegiance has no bearing on a child’s citizenship at time of birth, only the mother’s is controlling”
Actually that is not MY position that is the position of the US gov’t
nad fyi it is not limited to the Mother. R
Read the statute
Not sure where you think the harshness came in. I have not directed a single post to you
The reality is that Cruz is eligible to run for POTUS if he chooses and that is not yet a given
Why some people persist in being upset on the ‘ natural born” phrase is mystifying>
I understand what the founders intended but they did not put any protection of that phrase into our Constitution
and so we are where we are today
with a vile POS in the White House
and now some are wasting time questioning the eligibility or even the phase to use concerning someone how at this point has not announced he will run.
Senator Ted Cruz was a U.S. Citizen at birth period.
All that means is Cruz is a citizen by statute, but not a natural born Citizen by natural law.
Here is the difference:
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
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.