Or is he just a liar? because he has also stated that his mother once told him that he had Canadian citizenship. So he didn't just find that out from reading the Dallas News.
Posted on 08/26/2013 1:51:55 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
This article appeared on Daily Caller on August 26, 2013.
As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas — love him or hate him — continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret: Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
(Full disclosure: I’m Canadian myself, with a green card. Also, Cruz has been a friend since his days representing Texas before the Supreme Court.)
But does that mean that Cruz’s presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards, having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?
No, actually, and it’s not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. (The Founding Fathers didn’t want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)
What’s a “natural born citizen”? The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.
There’s no ideological debate here: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson — who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases — co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain’s eligibility. Recall that McCain — lately one of Cruz’s chief antagonists — was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.
In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth — as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later (“naturalizes”) or who isn’t a citizen at all — can be president.
So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.
That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.
So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there’s no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn’t have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn’t have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)
In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn’t be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain — and could’ve said about Obama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater — Cruz “is certainly not the hypothetical ‘foreigner’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.”
Now where the hell did you find that picture of my GRANMA!!! (haha!)
Yeah, I do think they’re going to run Slick Willyette on the D side.
And I do believe Ted Cruz will try for the nomination on our side. As will RINO Christie and whatever other squish moedrate the ball-less GOPe try to foist on us.
By the way, turn it back on them: Where is "Citizen" defined in the Constitution?
I agree, but will she run? That is the question.
My point is that those believing there is no difference should use the constitutional procedure to resolve it.Sorry my FRiend, but you have it exactly backwards as to what is constitutionally correct.
Until then, neither Cruz nor Soetoro/Obama are qualified.
Since you lecture us with your academic double speak which includes a fundamental lack of knowledge of ordinal intent and then use the word birthers pejoratively, I will use baby talk to educate you.... But my words are more for others in this forum than to you because I do not think you have the capacity to understand.
To protect and defend the constitution in as oath all in government and the military swear to.... They do not take an oath to a man like Obama or an office like the presidency. Therefor, the most agree that meaning of the Constitution is very important. Right? The constitution was written by our founders who painfully debated every single word. AND to quote Rush.... "Words mean things" So therefore the original intent is not just a catch-all as you put it. But rather a window into how the framers of the constitution wanted to establish the union...... God Bless
/johnny
OK - Then please show me where - in the Constitution - the term “citizen” is defined.
To protect and defend the constitution in as oath all in government and the military swear to.... They do not take an oath to a man like Obama or an office like the presidency. Therefor, the most agree that meaning of the Constitution is very important. Right? The constitution was written by our founders who painfully debated every single word. AND to quote Rush.... "Words mean things" So therefore the original intent is not just a catch-all as you put it. But rather a window into how the framers of the constitution wanted to establish the union...... God BlessAnd yet, those of you that hold that this is the original intent of all signers cannot point the relevant details in the constitution or any documents that can clearly remove this point from the debate as being totally settled.
Sorry for my typos
Please cite the law that requires both parent to be citizens.
Check out Minor vs Heppersett US Supreme Court.
Your ignorance is troubling, pal!
OK - Then please show me where - in the Constitution - the term “citizen” is defined.
The same can be said of many of those posting from the other side of the argument. It's one of the most contentious topics we've ever seen on this forum, and passions run hot on both sides.
The man now occupying the White House is of questionable eligibility to hold the office, and his defenders and shills have showed up here to argue the anti-birther side since he was first elected.
They argue for the weaker version of presidential eligibility because they truly fear their man really isn't eligible. Some on our side argue for the weaker version because they fear that insisting upon (what I think is) the 18th century understanding of the Constitution will make us look like 'wacko birds'.
My personal conclusion on all of this, is that the Framers intended to restrict the office to those whose loyalty to America could be reasonably trusted. The best way they could think of to accomplish that, was to only allow citizens with ties to the blood and soil of this country to hold the office. It just makes no logical sense to me that they would have purposefully included the NBC requirement in the Constitution for that office (and that office only) for any other reason.
Again - I'm not going to call another Freeper an idiot for thinking otherwise.
OK - Then please show me where - in the Constitution - the term “citizen” is defined.Why?
You misstate my position..... Even though I believe that the framers all new what they meant when they used both terms Citizen and natural born citizen in the came clause, because there are those like you who disagree, by definition it is not settled.
To clarify my position, I believe that it is time for the Supreme Court to stop rejecting cases placed before them and make a ruling that includes a clear definition of NBC. We need to document the intent of the framers..... This why our government was established with co-equal branches including checks and balances.
The Nineteenth Amendment, passed on 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett.
What do you say about that, Pal? The law's the law. You can't just pick the parts you like and ignore the rest. Pal. Even if you like those parts, pal.
In future, how about discussing the law and leaving out the patronizing diminutives.
If Cruz runs, I’ll vote for him so fast I’ll fall over my own feet trying to get there.
Can you add me to the Cruz ping list, please?
When this comes up before the Judiciary, it is their role and duty to make a ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.