I’ve checked and thus far all of the anti-birther/Obot blogs are supporting Cruz’ eligibility.
Here’s one example from Obama Conspiracy Theories.com
“Yeah Cruz Is Eligible”
While I do not think that Congress can change the definition of natural born citizen, I do believe that they can change the status of individuals so that they meet the definition. I dont see any qualitative difference between legislation adding a new state to the union (and thereby making new US citizens at birth) and Congress making citizens at birth through legislation under their naturalization powers. No one would argue that only people born in the 13 original states can be President, so why should they argue that only people born under the English Common Law provisions governing citizenship in 1789 can be President?
I should point out that the Constitution does not define natural born citizen. One has to look elsewhere for the definition. For a definition, I look to the first Congress, who in 1790 by legislation made certain persons natural born citizens who were not natural born citizens before. Those Congressmen, one of whom, James Madison, is recognized as the principal author of the Constitution, decided that they could by legislation create natural born citizens, and the former President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington signed that bill into law. I do not think that the actions of the First Congress and President Washington are easily dismissed, nor are arguments of carelessness on their part credible.
The clear implication of the 1790 Act (and the Oxford English Dictionary) is that to our founders natural born citizen meant citizen at birth. So the question that remains is whether the Constitutions naturalization provision gives Congress the power to create citizens at birth (in contrast to the usual understanding of naturalizationmaking someone a citizen after birth). The Congress has and does create citizens at birth (even in some cases retroactively) and I dont know of any challenge to them doing that. (Judge Alsup in Robinson v. Bowen even opined that a retroactive act of Congress made John McCain a natural born citizen.) I see no objection to Congress changing membership in the pool of natural born citizens, through its naturalization powers.
If one were to invoke the English Common Law as both defining the term natural born subject and limiting which persons meet the definition, then I would point them to the various British acts that create natural born subjects, as argument against that position. That is, in 1789 Americans had a contemporary example of British legislation that expanded the pool of natural born subjects. Or put another way, I think that saying that English Common Law defines membership in the class of natural born subjects is the same mistake as saying that Minor v. Happersett defines membership in the class of natural born citizensconfusing necessary with sufficient conditions.)
Since according to U. S. Law, Canadian-born Ted Cruz was a U. S. citizen at birth, then yeah, hes eligible to run for President.
And from the liberal magazine, The Atlantic Monthly
“Yes, Ted Cruz CanBe Born in Canada ans Still Become President of the US”
“Ive checked and thus far all of the anti-birther/Obot blogs are supporting Cruz eligibility.”
Perhaps with good reason, as shown in second paragraph (in quotes).
From the Opening Post of this thread:
“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. Cruzs 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 theres 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 couldnt have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldnt have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else.”
So just in case you missed it, Nero, let’s just tune in on this part:
“..So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that theres 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 couldnt have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. ..”
Moral of the story: Obama birthers might have a case, PROVIDED Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, of course.
Cruz birthers absolutely DO NOT have a case.
Ping to 679 and 683