Devil's advocate: Two wrongs DO make a right?
Guys, you are not analyzing this correctly.
Everyone admits that Obama's father, like Cruz', was not an American citizen. That is utterly settled.
So now we have to turn to the mothers of each. The requirement at the time both were born was that to be a citizen from birth when one parent is not a citizen (regardless of where the birth in question took place), the citizen parent had to reside in the US for at least 5 years after attaining the age of 14. In the case of Cruz, this requirement has been met, so he was a citizen from the moment he was born. In the case of Obama, it wasn't met - his mother was under 19 when he was born. So, based on that, Obama never was and never could be eligible. HOWEVER, there is one exception to that - if he was born on US soil. Hence the fight/controversy over whether he was born in Hawaii or not.
FYI, there is an old Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett (1874), which indicated that the term "natural born citizen" was different and more stringent than a "mere" citizen. It involved being the product of 2 American citizen parents at the time of one's birth. This safeguard (and it applies in U.S. law ONLY to the President) was viewed as having been put in place to ensure that not only did the President have a first loyalty to this country, but that his parents did as well - meaning that the environment in which the future President was raised was one loyal to the well-being of this country. Given the circumstances of Obama's upbringing, we can see the wisdom of that - and he is ineligible even if born in Hawaii, for the simple reason that his father was never a US citizen. If this test is used, then Cruz is not eligible - nor are my own kids, because my wife (though a legal resident at the time), was not a US citizen when they were born (she is now), even though I am a NBC. Under the definition in the first part of this post, Cruz and my kids are NBCs, but Obama's status is in question until the Hawaii thing can be resolved.
There have been many court rulings finding that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore he is a natural born citizen. Time and the courts will tell whether Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada changes the dynamic for him.
In 2008 Hawaii had a Republican Governor, Linda Lingle. Here is what she said regarding Obama’s place of birth:
“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established. He was born here.”—Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii
A few examples:
Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
Voeltz v. Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—November 12, 2009
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Minor v. Happersett was removed from online searches in 2008. Of the case itself. It was restored after the election.