If Ted Cruz and Ron Paul are the only two “good” choices, then we’re down to Ted Cruz.
And it seems impossible to get onto a Ted Cruz thread before the uninformed or willfully ignorant come out and proclaim him to be ineligible. He’s not. The message from our Founding Generation is that they intended those who were born citizens to be eligible to the Presidency.
This is shown several different ways. First, in John Jay’s letter that led to the qualification. He didn’t underline “natural” or the entire phrase. He underlined “BORN.”
Secondly, it’s obvious that the Framers of the Constitution believed that Congress had the ability to say who, born overseas to US parents, was eligible to the Presidency, since one of the things our very First Congress did was exactly that. They passed an Act proclaiming that the children born outside the United States to US citizens were to be considered NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, as long as their father had EVER lived in the US, and President Washington signed it into law the next day.
The extremely obvious effect of this “NATURAL BORN” declaration was to declare that such foreign-born US citizens would be eligible to be elected President one day. Between Congress and President Washington himself (who had presided over the Constitutional Convention) 40% of the Framers of the Constitution signed off on the law, without one person raising a single objection.
So it is completely, absolutely obvious that by “natural born citizen” the Framers did NOT mean “born on US soil to two US citizen parents.”
That a later Congress dropped the words “natural born” and said only that such persons were citizens, really doesn’t matter, either. And here’s why:
The historical understanding of “natural born citizen” throughout US history has always been that if a person is born a citizen, then he’s eligible to be President. This was always true both among lawyers, judges and politicians, and among the general public. And I can back this statement up with literally HUNDREDS of quotes.
It is clear, then, that - whatever the intentions of the Third Congress, who dropped the words “natural born” from the law - Congresses since then throughout US history who passed laws stating which children born to US citizens overseas were themselves citizens, had no intention to make such foreign-born US citizens ineligible to be President.
By this reasoning, Ted Cruz is eligible, and I have no doubt that our court system, including the Supreme Court, would affirm that he is.
Third, it was stated with absolute authority by William Rawle, extremely close associate of Washington, Franklin and half a dozen other Framers, that persons born on US soil were Constitutionally natural born citizens whether their parents were citizens or aliens.
Fourth, in the case of people like Ted Cruz, James Bayard wrote very specifically in his 1834 Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States that it was NOT necessary to be born in the United States in order to be Constitutionally eligible to be President. It was only necessary to be born a citizen, or to be a “citizen by birth.” This was an explicit declaration that people like Ted Cruz are eligible.
Bayard’s exposition was read and approved by none other than Chief Justice John Marshall, the “Great Chief Justice” who dominated the US Supreme Court for 35 years starting just 13 years after the Constitution was adopted.
If anyone was in a position to know what the Founders meant by the term, it was Marshall. From his approving letter to Bayard, it’s clear that he read Bayard’s book. And he would not have missed such an important matter as who was eligible to be President.
Fifth, all of the above is just the tiny tip of the iceberg when it comes to the historical and legal evidence that the Framers of the Constitution, and those who adopted it, did NOT mean a person had to be both born on US soil and have citizen parents to be eligible to be President. There are only two known legitimate sources from early America who ever claimed otherwise. Both are emphatically contradicted by far more credible authorities.
The first is David Ramsey, whose opinion on the matter was voted down 36 to 1 by our first House of Representatives, including Father of the Constitution James Madison and 5 other Framers. So obviously Ramsey was wrong.
The second is Samuel Roberts, a lower-court judge who presided over several COUNTIES in Pennsylvania, who stated that people born in the US to alien parents were not US citizens.
Roberts never had any responsibilities outside of the several-counties scope of his court, cited no authority for his comment, and (contrary to false claims by DiogenesLamp) did not speak with the authority of anyone other than himself. Specifically, he did NOT speak for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He mentioned their report in his book, but he clearly did not speak on their behalf.
Which brings us to the fact that birthers have made, and continue to make, literally DOZENS of false arguments to try and prop up their failed theory.
The real evidence, however (and I’ve presented only the tiniest portion of it here) is clear: The Founders and Framers intended that the President should be BORN a US citizen.
In terms of contemporary legal opinion, there doesn’t seem to be any major contemporary legal authority who says otherwise. Every major legal scholar seems to believe Cruz is eligible.
And they are correct.
As noted earlier in this thread, it’s still to early to say whether Ted Cruz would make a great President.
But we should dispense with the nonsense that Senator Cruz is not a viable and legal option.
Jeff wrote:
“If Ted Cruz and Ron Paul are the only two “good” choices, then we’re down to Ted Cruz.
And it seems impossible to get onto a Ted Cruz thread before the uninformed or willfully ignorant come out and proclaim him to be ineligible. He’s not.”
My response:
It seems impossible to get onto a Ted Cruz thread before the uninformed or willfully ignorant come out and proclaim him to be eligible. He’s not.
The communist libs take up the birther stance because of a couple things IMHO:
1. Payback and revenge. Those are two of the biggest drivers in the lib party now, coming straight from the top.
2. The can’t argue against many of the position Cruz takes without revealing themselves to be even more left fringe.
One of the things I like about Cruz is he doesn’t care about the nasties. He just doesn’t seem to pay much attention to it. I’m sure the IRS is looking at his tax history and the libs probably have Gloria Alred sniffing around to see if they can pull some poor mouse out of the woodwork and exploit how she felt “uncomfortable” around Cruz. I agree with those who say the communists and their propogandist media-bots will throw everything at Cruz they have.
You mean the willfully ignorant come out and proclaim him to be "eligible." He's not. He is only a citizen because of an act of Congress. Had congress not acted, he would not be a citizen of the US at all, he would be a "natural born subject" of Canada. (or would have before Canada separated from England.)
And this is something that you simply cannot understand. It is NOT POSSIBLE to be a "natural citizen" of two different countries. It is the very definition of an "unnatural" citizen.
A "natural" citizen owes allegiance to no other nation. Ted Cruz could have chosen to be Canadian. Again, what was the intent of Article II?
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
How again is admitting people with foreign citizenship a "Strong Check to the admission of Foreigners into the Administration of our national government" ?
Once more, you advocate a policy and interpretation that RUNS COUNTER TO THE FOUNDER'S INTENT, and one which is also counter to the best interests of the nation.