I believe that is incorrect. Sen. Cruz eligible ineligible to be president.
A candidate must fulfill three constitutional conditions before he can become President of the United States. A candidate must fulfill two of those three constitutional conditions before he can run for the office of President. The candidates are honor bound to meet the two conditions because there is no government entity that checks or investigates the candidate’s eligibility.
Article II. Section 1.
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.
The reason “natural born” is in bold characters is because that is the condition Senator Cruz cannot fulfill.
To see why that is important let’s compare the conditions for election to the House of Representatives and the Senate to the conditions for President.
Article 1. Section 2.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Article 1. Section 3.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
You can see that the conditions for a House member or a Senator do not include natural born Citizen. The founders added the natural born Citizen requirement for President and not for Congress because they wanted to avoid the possibility of the President having divided allegiances. In order to fulfill the natural born citizen requirement both of the candidate’s parents must be born in America.
It is also worth noting that the President is the only branch of government required by the Constitution to take this oath.
Article II. Section 1.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I am a Christian Conservative Tea Party Patriot who sincerely wishes Senator Cruz were eligible to run for President. However, the Constitution is more important to me than an individual candidate.
Thank you for your post. I like Cruz too. If one allows Cruz to do this; they will allow Obama too; even if it is suspicious that he was not born here either. They will still cover up.
According to the Twentieth Amendment, section three, a President-elect must prove he is eligible to serve or Congress is charged with naming a replacement. This did not occur as Congress avoided their duty and we thus have a usurper in the White House.
Then I have good news for you: Ted Cruz is eligible to run for and be elected President.
I used to say that he was "almost certainly" eligible to the Presidency. As of today, I'm even dropping that small qualifier.
Ted Cruz is Constitutionally eligible.
What do I base this on?
First, there doesn't seem to be even one prominent, widely recognized Constitutional authority in the country (and no, Herb Titus doesn't count) who says that Ted Cruz isn't eligible. So the opinion that Cruz is eligible seems to be pretty much unanimous.
Second, there is a lot of historical evidence that indicates that "natural born citizen" simply meant "citizen by birth," and that the Founders intended for people like Ted Cruz to be eligible.
Third (and this is what has made the difference) Chief Justice John Marshall, who was an important Founder of our Republic in addition to his 3-1/2 decades as Chief Justice, and who CERTAINLY would have known what the term meant, seems to have been fully in agreement that the term simply meant a "citizen by birth."
Incidentally, I have compiled quotes of what our best early legal authorities said about the meaning of "natural born citizen," which I will post after this post.
Somebody said this on FR long time ago, to wit: if 0bama is a NBC, anybody is an NBC. Heck, SCOTUS won't even take the case.
They won't take the case because the issue was settled in 1898, in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Doesn't it seem odd that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear a case on such an important matter as whether it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to make a "natural born citizen," if the matter were unresolved?
They won't take the case because it was settled more than a century ago.
What is the “weight of authority” that supports the idea that someone such as Senator Cruz is eligible to “be” President as satisfying the Natural Born Citizen requirement?
The CRS report (referenced above) is a good place to start from a legal point of view. My compilation of quotes from the best authorities of early America, below, is a good place to start from the historical point of view.
There actually isn’t any possibility for an individual born in the US with neither parent being US citizens, either, but authorities have been being very permissive and the perception is such.
It's not because authorities have been "permissive." It's because it never took citizen parents for someone born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. This has been said again and again by authority after authority in history. See below.
What about all the arguments that have been made, such as: "The United States Supreme Court in MINOR v, HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) clarified the definition of NATURAL BORN that a child born of two U.S. Citizens is a Natural Born citizen.
Almost all arguments put forth by birthers are historical and legal NONSENSE. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, they never said you had to have citizen parents. They only said that if you had both, it was certain that you were a natural born citizen. Their comment regarding children of non-citizens was simply a non-authoritative side comment (dicta) unrelated to the case at hand, and even if it had had any authority, it would've been overruled by the decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In addition to the compilation of quotes from our best early legal authorities, I have a running list of at least around 40 fallacious arguments made by birthers. It includes just about all of the major arguments they've ever made, and explains why each one is fallacious.
There are a few - a VERY few - people in history who actually did agree with the birthers. But in every case, they were overruled or contradicted by others of equal or (almost always) greater authority and expertise in the law.
Next, I will post the updated list of quotes relevant to natural born citizenship from early American authorities.