Cruz Will Renounce Canadian Citizenship

The Washington Post ^ | Monday, August 19, 2013 | Aaron Blake

[kristinn]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced Monday evening that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship, less than 24 hours after a newspaper pointed out that the Canadian-born senator likely maintains dual citizenship.

“Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” Cruz said in a statement. “Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator; I believe I should be only an American.”

SNIP

“Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter,” Cruz said.

[Constitution 123]

“I really wish the rule was both parents MUST be born in the United States “

There is such a rule and it is in the constitution.... That is why it says

“....No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.....”

There was only a limited time that a citizen who had one parent who was born outside the country could qualify for the presidency and that was only during the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This because so many people living here during the founding were born elsewhere.

After the adoption of the Constitution, this first generation of citizens would create a second generation of Natural Born Citizens.

When you study the Constitution you will see how brilliant our founders were.

Natural born citizens meant being born of two US citizen parents without attachment or loyalty to any other country.

The framers understood this.....

[Tau Food]

There aren’t many people arguing that both parents must be born in the United States. Some argue that both parents must be citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth.

[Constitution 123]

Understood.... I was referring to the mindset and thus the intent of the founders when they authored the words dealing with presidential eligibility.

In order to be considered a Natural Born Citizen, both parents need to be US citizens. The parents could be either born in the usa or if born outside the country, naturalized as citizens.

[Tau Food]

Well, I understand your view even if I disagree with it. My views on the matter can be found here.

But, I want everyone to think about the matter carefully and vote for a candidate that he or she believes to be eligible. That's the way we've always done it. ;-)

[Constitution 123]

In other words... A first generation US citizen born outside or even inside the country to at least one non citizen parent could never be considered a natural born Citizen of the USA.

That is the way I see it.

[Constitution 123]

I think we can both agree that the Supreme Court needs to stop avoiding this and deal with it.

[Tau Food]

I think we can both agree that the Supreme Court needs to stop avoiding this and deal with it.

No, I can't agree with that. The Constitution entrusted the selection of our presidents to electors. If they had wanted the Supreme Court to participate as a screener of candidates (as is done in Iran), I think they would have provided for that. Our Supreme Court has never even hinted that it has the constitutional power to disqualify candidates.

I'm happy with our present system. When it comes to picking our presidents, I trust a majority of electors more than I would trust a majority of the Supreme Court. ;-)

[Constitution 123]

WOW we do disagree...... And you are really misstating my position.

I am no way suggesting that the supreme court participate in screening candidates. All they should do is weigh in as to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

[Tau Food]

Well, the Supreme Court has always refused to issue advisory opinions. They don't just "weigh in" on issues that people think are interesting.

The Constitution provides for procedures in selecting presidents. Electors are bound to pick someone who meets the eligibility requirements (35 years of age, 14 years residency, natural born citizen). In the 57 elections that we've had, the electors have been required to apply those same standards. Can I be sure that they all gave the NBC term precisely the same definition? Nope. Can I be sure that everyone at the time of our founding gave the NBC term precisely the same definition? Nope, again. Can I be sure that each justice on the Supreme Court would give the NBC term precisely the same definition? No, still again.

I think that the definitions of all these folks would fall within an acceptable range of definitions. The idea is that presidents should be connected to this country by heritage and by experience (residency).

So, like everyone else, you interpret the term and vote accordingly. It'll all work out.

[Constitution 123]

Still disagree and your are still misstating my position.

I am nor suggesting that the Supreme court issue an advisory opinion. That is not what I meant by weigh in. I am suggesting that they stop turning away cases placed before them.

I think even justice Thomas said that the court needed one more of his colleagues to agree to hear an eligibility case. I am shure he said that the court was avoiding the issue.

[Tau Food]

No, I think I understand you. You believe the Court should take a case concerning some candidate's eligibility, decide the issue and perhaps thereby disqualify the candidate. In essence, the Court would be "screening" that candidate for eligibility. The Court cannot entertain such a case after the candidate becomes president because impeachment is the sole means by which a president can be removed from office and the House has the sole power of impeachment.

The Supreme Court just doesn't have any role in the selection of presidents and I don't think the justices want such a role.

[Constitution 123]

Okay, You are not now misstating my position but we still disagree big time.

The law is the Law is the Law and applies to everyone equally. Even the President.

There is plenty of evidence that something is wrong here. Millions spent by Obama to hide documents that you and I need to produce several times during our lives. Also an obvious fraudulent document posted on an official government website placed there to convince people what is not true is true.

And now, a new candidate who is likely not eligible but should according to you be given a pass because precedent is established that the rule of law is okay to be ignored?

Sorry..... This is not the country I know and love.

[kabar]

But a related question is what does it mean ‘natural born citizen’. The answer is a child born of citizens on US soil or its territories or its possessions or allowing for transitioning or living temporarily abroad but having a permanent domicile on US soil or its territories or its possessions.

The issue needs to be decided by the courts. It is one thing to be a citizen by birth and another to be eligible to be President under the Constitution. The Senate decided that it needed an opinion from Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson to issue a resolution on John McCain's eligibility to run for President. Here is the text of that opinion.

Essentially, they concluded that McCain was eligible under both jus sanguinis and jus solis. Interestingly, they addressed Obama's case as follows:

Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.

The only reason this is a hot topic today is because people sense Obama does not really like traditional America, that he harbors ill will against traditionalists who are mostly Christian whites and that he will seek to make America in his own image whatever that is.

No, it is of interest for several reasons. First, Obama's alleged father was a British subject, i.e., a non-US citizen. Would he be a "natural born citizen" just due to jus solis? We have 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies born to illegal aliens annually. Would they be considered natural born citizens eligible to be President? They are certainly citizens due to birthright citizenship.

Obama has never presented a legitimate copy of his birth certificate. The electronic copy produced by the WH has been proven a fraud. Obama has spent millions blocking attempts to obtain his records. By not being forthright and not providing original records, he has aroused suspicion among many about where he was born and when. Many of us here at FR can go into great detail on all of the problems associated with Obama's narrative about his life. It is really unprecedented as to how little we know about him.

Finally, his race and anti-American attitudes have very little to do with why a significant percentage of Americans continue to express skepticism about the authenticity of his birth certificate. There is a real issue here about whether someone born in this country or abroad with at least one parent a non-US citizen can be eligible for the Presidency. It came up as an issue for Chester A Arthur and now Obama. The case of Ted Cruz is another one. We need the courts to resolve this. With one out of 8 residents of this country being foreign-born and eventually one out of 5 by 2050, we need a decision from the courts sooner rather than later.

[Hostage]

I’ve already posted that I don’t think the good ole boy Senate is the place to be deciding allegiance and loyalty matters of the Chief Executive especially in the form of quick resolutions that are sparsely attended. I don’t trust them even if McConnell were to be majority leader which I hope Bevin prevents.

I think election law reform is in the wind that will address myriad issues of tampering, fraud, intimidation, suppression (for example, military vote) and all the eligibility checks that must be made.

[kabar]

I thought I was quite clear that this was a matter for the courts to decide. The Senate resolution was not binding in any way. It was just an expression of opinion. It is far from being dispositive.

Who will be in charge of election reform? Congress of course. It is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. We saw what McCain-Feingold did.

[Hostage]

I don’t think the courts can do the job either. They are just as politicized as anyone.

During this session of Congress conservatives are doing well with matters of Congress even though they are working with a Speaker that is not on their side and a Senate that is hostile and threatening.

However, conservatives are losing badly in the courts to the point that it has become obvious what’s going on. No, the courts don’t work and won’t work for election reform.

Election reform needs to be brought after conservatives topple the GOPe and take control of the party, or start a new one.

Right now conservatives are holding the line on the immigration fiasco and not letting it progress but we will see who wins that battle when legislators return in the Fall.

Conservatives are on a winning streak in Congress with defeat of the gun control bill. If they win on immigration by shutting it down completely as was done with the gun bill, then the battle focus is over budget, debt ceiling and Obamacare defunding.

Either way conservatives can sail into the 2014 election cyle and take back the Senate. Bevin can oust McConnell, Graham can be shown the door and a host of others.

If the conservative momentum keeps up in Congress, then election reform will be in the hands of conservatives in Congress.

There’s also an Article V movement brewing and it will eventually get Congress’ attention. At first it is, as it is now, merely a curiosity, a novelty, then later it will be mocked and then later again there will be the “Holy Sh*t! They’re serious” moment.

Although an amendment is not needed for election reform, the Article V process will be dominated by conservatives and that will put additional pressure on Congress to pay attention to new conservative leaders that are about to emerge.

Election reform belongs in Congress but not just yet.

[Hieronymus]

Brewers.

[Red Steel]

Speaking of Fox news and Hannity having a divergence on the eligibility of the fast starting Cruz.

Here is Carl Cameron of Fox back in March stating since Cruz was born in Canada he is not eligible to be president.

"Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth "

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg_SnL0OrNo&feature=youtu.be

[skr]

If neither of the parents are citizens or permanent residents of Canada, a child born in Canada does not qualify for Canadian citizenship. This leaves it up to the parents’ citizenship status apparently.

[GeronL]

Now Cruz is a stateless person? This is sad.

/sarc