Replies

It's possible that the senior Cruz could be regarded as having thrown off any allegiance he may have had to the former Cuban nation under Batista, by virtue of having taken arms up against it and ultimately expatriating. It's a stretch, however, to assume that any formal renunciation was made by him before the law, in a state or federal courthouse.

Prove that he did do this and you're a long way toward resolving any doubt regarding the existence of internationally accepted claims of jurisdiction by Cuba upon children of the senior Cruz.

Everybody has been so caught up, looking for “the” definitive rule or law, when it's been reasonably clear from various courts that the answer is, it depends. There are doubts regarding certain circumstances of birth, however these doubts can be resolved, in the affirmative or in the negative. Birth circumstance varies widely from one individual to the next. A single law covering them all was not feasible.

Eligibility was clearly to be determined on a case by case basis, for those in a position of doubt. The only individuals for whom there was and is no doubt, are those born under the full jurisdiction of the United States, to citizen parents. There is no other avenue possible for a foreign jurisdiction to make any internationally recognized legal claim of jurisdiction upon such individuals. Others not born in this circumstance can be found to be free of foreign jurisdictional claims, but it just isn't clear cut.

Here is the one thing I need to emphasize. The principle intent of the Framers was that the Consitution must be interpreted so as to ensure that future generations would continue to “secure the Blessing of Liberty”. Therefore, not even considering the Common Law rules for Stautory Interpretaion that any term that is vague must be interpreted in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, I believe that as people who love this country, people who honor our founders, and people who believe in the principals of Liberty, that we must be willing to consider the current Zeitgeist and the Constitutional Crisis of this time and recognize that if we believe that a man such as Ted Cruz is the most likely candidate to both return our Country back to the Republic our founders envisioned and to secure the Blessigs of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, then we must not only give every benefit of the doubt as to his eligibility to Ted Cruz, but we must actively and enthusiastically work to ensure his election in 2016.

Simply put, given the times in which we live, any strict and unbending rule of interpretation which would prevent Ted Cruz from ascending to the office of the President would in and of itself be unconstitutional.

I am convinced just based on the standard principles of general statutory interpretation that Ted Cruz, being a Citizen at Birth, would fall into the Category of Natural Born Citizen.

To those who disagree, I have to ask whether, in light of the current Constitutional Crisis in which we find ourselves today their refusal to support someone like Ted Cruz because of their rigid interpretation of the NBC clause will be a step towards or away from the principle goal of our Founders to preserve the Blessings of Liberty to both ourselves and our Posterity.

If they cannot in all good conscience say that their position will work to secure those blessings,, then I believe that as Patriotic Americans, they owe it to both themselves and their posterity to reconsider their position.

I do not believe we will have another shot at preserving the Constitution after 2016 if we don’t elect a president at that time who truly believes in the founding principles of Liberty.

If we end up with a Democrat or a RINO in 2016, then the Republic is finished. So what is more important right now, applying such a rigid interpretation to some vague clause in the Constitution so that we exclude the most electable man who can save this Republic, or saving this country by enthusiastically supporting him?

I will try to get the 1790 law up to read. In the meantime I have the following comments. 1) Would a law made in 1790 supersede the words in the Constitution adopted in 1787? 2)Cruz was not ‘born’ to a father while residing in the USA. Cruz was born to a Cuban citizen father while residing in Canada. 3) I take that the word ‘born ‘ does not mean just ‘residing ‘. 4) The act of being sworn in as a ‘citizen’ does not convey ‘natural born’ though I would think some if not most of the frontiersmen were also born in the ‘States’. As to any individual holding any office under the Constitution that would require special attention.