Constitutional Scholars Explain Why Ted Cruz Is Eligible to Be President
ABC News ^ | 1/6/16 | RYAN STRUYK
Posted on 1/9/2016 8:19:44 PM by jimbo123
Donald Trump says questions about whether Ted Cruz is eligible to be President of the United States could become a “big problem” for the Canadian-born Republican candidate. But among legal scholars, there's a consensus: He's eligible to occupy the Oval Office.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3381791/posts
Why Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” [A legal, historical and constitutional argument]
Washington Post ^ | 01/08/2016 | By Randy Barnett
Posted on 1/8/2016 12:09:04 PM by SeekAndFind
Linking to this succinct but powerful essay by Paul Clement and my Georgetown colleague Neal Katyal, Jonathan usefully summarizes the legal argument for why Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother, is a “natural born citizen” under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution, which provides:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. (emphasis added)
As he concludes in his post: “Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a ‘natural born citizen’ (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.” To the evidence elicited by Clement and Katyal, I wish only to add that this conclusion is also theoretically justified by a proper conception of popular sovereignty.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3381276/posts
Yeah, uh huh. and his own Harvard law professor says Cruz is wrong and it is NOT settled law. Lawrence Tribe stated on ABC Cruz was smart but inferred Obama was smarter.