The birther issue isn’t going away. Cruz is not eligible and that is according to the constitution. Read it, try to understand it, and your apology will be accepted.
In accordance with natural law, a child’s nationality is thought to follow the circumstances of his or her birth so as to reasonably measure and determine where the child’s natural loyalty and duty lies.
Several elements, differing according to place and time, have traditionally figured into this measurement and determination, including place of birth as well as the nationality of the parent(s) and very importantly including the wishes of the liege.
There is no simplistic formula that can be used to make this measurement, one needs to look at all the facts. And in doing so you can’t pretend like it’s 1756. We no longer follow patrilineage in this country.
Also, it should be obvious, but I will restate it now just to encourage clarity of thought, that our polity cannot control how another polity determines how and from whom it demands loyalty or whom it considers its nationals. Therefore whether or not another polity considers one of ours to be one of theirs has NO bearing on the natural loyalty and duty of the child in question. This undeniable fact MUST be understood, as failure to understand has led to much confusion and tortured thinking.
So, in the case of Ted Cruz, the fact of his birth in Canada is not determinative of anything. It is merely one of the circumstances of his birth than must be considered, as must be his parentage which includes a Cuban father and an American mother.
I think we can safely say that there has been no evidence that Ted Cruz feels any sense of loyalty or duty to Cuba now or at any time in the past, nor has Cuba demanded this from him. His Father had left Cuba with no intent to return. At the time of Ted Cruz’s birth, both his father and mother were in Canada merely on temporary work permits, but nevertheless, according to the rules the Canadians have chosen for themselves, they consider the baby Cruz to have Canadian nationality. This is none of our business as Americans. Canada could just as easily have chosen rules that would have denied the baby Cruz their nationality, and that also would be none of our business as Americans.
Because this is now the 21st Century, and until recently the late 20th Century, and attitudes and laws have evolved since the 18th century, we now, in our polity, consider women and men as equals before the law. Whereas in the past our polity only considered patrilineage, we now accept that our men and women may equally bequeath their nationality upon their children. This is not merely a accidental result of an arbitrary statute. This is a natural condition that the statutes, enacted in the name of our modern day liege, We The People, merely recognize and enforce in the name of clarity, certainty and the will of the sovereign.
Therefore, Ted Cruz was and remains a natural-born citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of the circumstances of his birth for all the reasons above, fully absent the action of any statute. If natural born citizenship is supported by statute, so much the better in the interest of clarity and certainty. But we need to be clear that the absence of these statutes would not serve to change Ted Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen and national of the United States.
Ted Cruz is not electable?
Why don’t you and your mate Trump try and stop him? Put your money where your mouth is.
I've been reading threads all morning that are pro/con Cruz/Trump and you are one of the most arrogant sonofabitchs that has posted so far.
You seem to think that only you can read and understand the Constitution. You are wrong, but shove your apology up your nose when you get your big head out of your ass.
Piss off, mate.
LOL! Strong talk one way or the other here on this forum is such a waste. Do you think it actually changes anyone's opinion? The problem is, as I have explained elsewhere, the Constitution does not detail the precise model for determining "natural born," and historically there have been several. As an originalist, one can argue which of those models should be used, and everyone is entitled to an opinion.
But nobody's opinion here is binding legal authority. If you think Vattel is the way to go, get it written down, voted on, and added to the Constitution as an amendment. Otherwise, it makes no sense to harass good, fellow conservatives over whose non-binding opinion would win the day in a hypothetical SCOTUS ruling that in reality is less likely to occur than you or I winning the Powerball lottery.
Besides, if you really want to look at original intent, Ted Cruz isn't the guy the founders were worried about. They had specific cases in mind of foreign military leaders worming their way into leadership where they didn't belong. Ted's an American by birth, not by statute, and he's got the loyalty and single-minded devotion they were trying to encourage, so he meets their "original intent" with flying colors.
But here on FR it has become heresy to question Vattel, as if his opinion was holy writ. News flash, it is not. The founders wrote what they wrote. Like I said, if you think it should be more specific, bring it up at the Article 5 convention, if and when that happens. Meanwhile, less friendly fire would make FR and conservatism a somewhat healthier place to be.
Peace,
SR
Molly, baby. Get off the birther thing. It’s been done and Cruz is still running.