Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.

The Atlantic ^ | May 2013 | DAVID A. GRAHAMMAY

[Jim Robinson]

~~snip~~ (just the facts, ma'am).

But what won't prevent Cruz from becoming president is his place of birth. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, while his parents were living there. His father is now an American citizen, but was not at the time; his mother, however, was born in the United States.

Helpfully, the Congressional Research Service gathered all of the information relevant to Cruz's case a few years ago, at the height (nadir?) of Obama birtherism. In short, the Constitution says that the president must be a natural-born citizen. "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements," the CRS's Jack Maskell wrote. So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen. You can read the CRS memo at bottom; here's a much longer and more detailed 2011 version.

~~snip~~

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course, if Cruz is our standard bearer, I am voting for him, but I fear that the dems will wait until it is too late to field another candidate, then try to DQ Cruz because he was foreign born. I hope, if he indeed runs, that he has the good sense to seek a court ruling on his eligibility very early on.

This is exactly the sort of thing I would expect from them, and they will miraculously find a way to get "Standing" because everyone knows the Judiciary is infested with Liberal worms.

Add to that the Media Trumpets all continuously running stories questioning his eligibility, and even if he wins the Judicial fights, they will have so badly polluted the waters that it might cost him the election anyway.

Unlike their prostrate coma regarding Obama's legitimacy, the media will work feverishly at questioning any Republican.

But there *IS* no better choice for us. We will have to figure out how to defang both the Presstitutes and the Judicial whores.

[okie01]

then try to DQ Cruz because he was foreign born. I hope, if he indeed runs, that he has the good sense to seek a court ruling on his eligibility very early on.

This is exactly the sort of thing I would expect from them, and they will miraculously find a way to get "Standing" because everyone knows the Judiciary is infested with Liberal worms.

Really, there is need for any concern in this regard. The citizenship law that governs the period of Cruz' birth (1970) clearly states that, in the event of an overseas birth, American citizenship can be conveyed by a.) a single parent who has b.)resided in American for at least ten years, five of them after the age of 14.

Elizabeth Wilson Darragh Cruz easily passes the threshold.

Cruz's eligibility is your basic "open and shut case". Challenging it in a court of law would draw, at best, a guffaw, at worst, a contempt charge, from any competent jurist.

[xzins]

It is not one of the documents/agreements listed by the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land.

Why should we assume that the entire Congress is always populated by no-nothings who have no desire to ascertain the intent of the Founders? After all, they are the ones given the authority to determine the issue of who needs to be naturalized and who doesn’t.

So, it’s highly likely they’ve considered these things and simply disagreed over the years with opinions like those who don’t like blood-based natural citizenship.

[Revelation 911]

are you still blathering on?

my point with the Jeopary reference was the irony and hypocrisy as you pull the same nonsense with a different subject

now either you understood that initially or are frankly mouth breathing too long and hard to understand it….

[Nero Germanicus]

It is not difficult to gain standing.
All that is needed is a plaintiff who can demonstrate DIRECT injury from the actions of the defendant. In a candidate eligibility lawsuit, the persons with standing are the opposing candidates who were denied the office by the ineligible candidate.

The three requirements of standing:
(1) Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
(2) Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
And (3) Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

[ansel12]

Another hostile but meaningless post.

Whatever this stalking thing of your is, it sure isn’t helping the quality of your posts, or the thread topic.

[DiogenesLamp]

Cruz's eligibility is your basic "open and shut case". Challenging it in a court of law would draw, at best, a guffaw, at worst, a contempt charge, from any competent jurist.

You look at our legal system as functional, while I look at it as completely broken, and unable to come to any rational conclusions about anything.

That the legal system could be on both sides of an issue at the same time I have no doubt. The Legal system has become "Calvin Ball" and the laws mean whatever they feel like on any given day.

It will surprise me not one whit that they can refuse to hear any case about Obama (or in the few times they did "hear", bother listening) but decide every case filed by anyone for any reason must be adjudicated if it is detrimental to a Republican.

We've already seen the Racist and deeply politically biased "Justice" Department, and Obama has produced a veritable maggot infestation worth of New Liberal Federal Judges, so if you think "Justice" is so cut and dried, I have a bridge to sell to you in Brooklyn.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is not one of the documents/agreements listed by the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land.

As it is specifically responsible for CREATING THE NATION, I would suggest that any other document must be derived from the authority it embodies. It created an officially Separate government On July 4, 1776. If the Declaration of Independence wasn't our original governing charter, what was?

The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781, which was five years later. What served as our governing document up to that point?

[xzins]

You can argue anything you want, but it’s still not listed in the Constitution as part of the supreme law of the land.

And it’s not fair for us to assume that Congresses over the years haven’t studied the subject using all the information that’s available.

They have been remarkably similar in where they came down: children born overseas to US citizens are themselves citizens at birth.

Some groups are upset because Congress disagrees with their own personal opinion. They’re allowed to be upset, I suppose, but the Constitution still gives the authority to decide these things to Congress and not to disgruntled groups.

[DiogenesLamp]

You can argue anything you want, but it’s still not listed in the Constitution as part of the supreme law of the land.

The Constitution is subservient to the document which created it. The Constitution derives *IT'S* authority from the Declaration of Independence.

But you are right. I can argue anything I want, and it won't make the slightest difference to you. I have argued with you in the past, and you are simply unreachable with any form of fact or reason.

But don't despair, subjectivity is the norm nowadays. You have plenty of company. You are in the main herd.

[rxsid]

Of course, Rep John Bingham was an idiot who had no clue what he was talking about. And, the SCOTUS in Minor were dilusional, as was John Jay.

I know, I know, we know better in today's open border world.

Long live the Dauphine of France, the future POTUS of the U.S...at least, as long as 50.1% of the low information voters think he's cool.

[Nero Germanicus]

“Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”—Sir Winston Churchill

“Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.”—Ronald Reagan

If the Dauphin of France can thrive against the opposition in about 20 major party primary election season debates and 53 primary elections and state caucuses; if he can get nominated by a major political party; raise at least 600 million dollars, hold his own in three nationally televised presidential debates, get at least 60 million Americans to vote for him (be they low information, medium information or high information voters); accumulate 270 electoral votes; and withstand more than 200 civil suits challenging his eligibility, then yes, he too can be president.

[Vermont Lt]

Eligible? Sure.

Qualified? Not a whole hell of a lot more than Obama.

I would much prefer someone with executive experience. Haven’t we had enough rhetoric amateur hour for the past five years?

[xzins]

It’s simply a matter of fact, DL. The Constitution lists 3 items that are the supreme law of the land: The Constitution itself, the laws Congress passes, and treaties.

Now, you have to believe you are the only one who knows how to interpret those correctly to believe that Congress has been mistaken since the very first naturalization law enacted in 1790 in the very first Congress and signed into law by George Washington. And every law since then preserves the decision that birth citizenship includes blood-based citizenship.

It’s not a matter of my being convinced by someone. It’s a matter of that being the law, of it being the law for hundreds of years, and of our recognizing the Congress having the authority to determine the law on that subject.

[P-Marlowe]

I would much prefer someone with executive experience.

If you are comparing the "executive experience" of Barack (The Community Organizer) to Ted (Look up his bio sometime you idiot) Cruz, then you are a fool.

[xzins]

Should have pinged you to #214

[Revelation 911]

hmmm - for all the posting, you sure have poor short term memory skills -I’d suggest you see your primary physician and discuss this.

[xzins]

You are fighting reality, Tx.

Congress has the authority. They’ve decided. You simply DISAGREE with their decision. The way to fix that is to get yourself and another 300 or so of your friends elected to House and Senate. Or you could have a constitutional amendment that defines ‘natural born citizen’.

Until then it’s just a matter of griping at those who do have the Constitutional authority to make the decisions in this case.

[First_Salute]

Yes: “it meant something unique”

To be a “natural born citizen,” one must be born either on U.S. soil or to U.S.-citizen-parents.

The purpose of the entry in our Constitution, was loyalty to our country and loyalty to our foundations for liberty and country.