Posted on 11/28/2015 8:27:12 AM PST by Kaslin
Texas Senator Ted Cruz has been rising in the polls of late, not only in Iowa, but nationally as well. (And high time, if you ask me.) It’s far too soon to declare him a resident of the top tier aside Trump with so few samples, but the prospect of his being a serious contender for the nomination can’t be discounted. And if he wins the Party’s endorsement, he may be in fine shape to take on Hillary Clinton and then be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. So then what?
Well, at least according to Alan Grayson, we should file a beautiful lawsuit to challenge his qualifications to hold the office. (Mediaite)
Florida Congressman Alan Grayson told radio host Alan Colmes Wednesday that if Ted Cruz is elected president, he "will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he's unqualified for the job" according to the Constitution.
Cruz was born in Canada to a native-born American mother, making the presidential candidate a dual Canadian-American citizen. It was not until a 2013 Dallas Morning News article that Cruz acknowledged his Canadian citizenry publicly. In 2014, the senator renounced his Canadian citizenship altogether.
Lamenting the "appalling choices" Republicans have to choose among, Grayson told Colmes the Republican race "resolved itself into this weird reality show."
Even if Grayson is just grousing and looking for a way to throw darts at Cruz, I think this is a great idea and we should absolutely move forward with it in the event that Ted Cruz is elected. In fact, it should start the day after he’s sworn in because this would no doubt take quite a while. I don’t say this because I have any doubt that Cruz would qualify under our current interpretation of the law.. he would. Under Title 8 rules we have what is currently a broadly accepted definition who who qualifies as a natural citizen at the time of their birth as opposed to someone who is naturalized. Cruz would most likely qualify under section (e) but most certainly under section (g)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years
There’s just one problem with deciding that Cruz is qualified based on that snippet of legislation: it’s never been challenged all the way up through the courts and this issue keeps coming up over and over again. I’m not even talking about Barack Obama here; you may recall that Congress actually had to go to the trouble of passing a resolution in 2008 stating that John McCain was a natural born citizen. (McCain was born in Panama to a military family on assignment and his parents were citizens.)
So why not just pass another amendment like that for Ted Cruz? Because it doesn’t solve anything. The phrase natural born citizen is essentially unique in the writings of the Founders and they didn’t do a very good job of explaining themselves. If we had a ruling from the Supremes to put into the books not just on Ted Cruz in particular, but on the exact meaning of the phrase we could be done with this once and for all. It seems self evident that the Founders drew a clear distinction between two types of citizens; natural born and naturalized. Cruz, like McCain, never went through the naturalization process since it was always assumed they were citizens at the time of their birth, so they are either natural born citizens or they’re illegal aliens.
No matter how often we scratch our heads over the various rulings handed down from the Supremes these days, I can’t see where we lose on this one. Let them nail this thing down once and for all so we can be done with it without having to go through another constitutional amendment. It won’t affect President Cruz one bit and we can spare future generations all of this nonsense.
Ping
What, precisely, is not honest about studying how the phrase “natural born citizen” came to be in the Constitution and what it was derived from and meant to those who were involved or who were familiar with those involved?
When I was a schoolboy the term natural born was used often, we might tell a schoolmate that he was a “natural born” horseshoe pitcher which meant that he could not have been otherwise, he was born to pitch horseshoes. That is the way the term was explained to me in school, a “natural born” citizen was one whose citizenship could not be challenged in any way, he was the child of two parents who were American citizens at the time of his birth and he was born on American soil and had no claim to citizenship in any other country. Nowadays the term is never heard except in reference to the eligibility to be POTUS and some people seem to have no idea whatsoever of its original meaning and some even seem to think that congress can legislate whether someone is a natural born citizen. Anyone who is a citizen due to falling under a piece of legislation CANNOT be a natural born citizen because congress only has the power to legislate concerning NATURALIZATION, not natural born citizenship. It would appear that the reason the constitution does not define the term natural born is that it would have been considered at the time to be as absurd as defining what a human being is.
Ted Cruz’ father became a citizen in 2005. He was not a citizen when Cruz was born and neither was Obama’s father. The biggest difference is that Obama was born in the US and Ted Cruz in Canada.
You IMHO are correct.
Convenient but wrong. Sounds more like something that came to mind after the fact. The only reason this issue is even under discussion is because we have people of questionable heritage that brought it forward.
McCain knew he was not eligible or he would have never called for a Sense of the Senate Resolution, proclaiming him to be an NBC. That resolution was as useless as my signature on a million dollar check. You did know that they tried to attach Barak's name to that same resolution right? Before 2008 if you asked a man on the street what NBC meant, he most likely would have told you born in USA of two Citizens.
I try to avoid this issue entirely because Cruz is held in high regard and deemed to be NBC on this forum. I don't happen to agree but it doesn't really matter our opinion is irrelevant, the decision will be or has beenmade by our betters.
Grayson is a grandstanding publicity hound.
Sorry, pal. You don't have 'standing' to file such a suit. The precedent is already established.
Britain sure could use someone with his grit.
Cruz had dual Citizenship at birth (US/Canadian) according to some sources, and selected US when he reached the age of majority.
“McCain knew he was not eligible or he would have never called for a Sense of the Senate Resolution, proclaiming him to be an NBC.”
I fail to see how that negates my saying that a natural born citizen is one whose citizenship could not be challenged in any way. The only way McCain could know he was not eligible is because he was not actually born on the soil of America, he certainly meets any other standard. You seem to agree with what I was taught in grade school in the fifties. Very few now would agree with the requirement to be born on American soil.
I do not argue that he is an American citizen. I argue that he is not a natural born citizen.
I would imagine that about 45% of the electorate could care less where their benefactor was born.
ONLY if Cruz wins the pres. election?
BUT the liberals will LOSE if they are stupid enough to try that.
“..but his mother was born and raised in the United States. The law in effect then, and now, made Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen at birth.”
No it isn't. Let the matter be heard by the Supremes, with The People as Plaintiff (try to tell us we don't have "standing"!) and everyone you please as respondent, but certainly including Obama.
Stapled to a writ of certiorari demanding immediate delivery of all Obama's records, and demanding proof of his renaturalization on his return from Indonesia.
FWIW, I think it's 50/50 that he is actually, legally, an Indonesian citizen ever since the 1970's. I think he never renaturalized, but continued to use his Indonesian passport, which constitutes an 'election' of citizenship under U.S. law. (My sister was questioned on that point when I was the subject of a Background Investigation when I was in the Navy. She was a CAN/US dual citizen at birth but had "elected" by voting in Louisiana elections after turning 18.)
I think Obama's an Indonesian and knows it, and Pelosi knows it, and a lot of other people in the 'Rat party know it -- which is why Hillary broached the BC issue back in 2008, using her favorite Philly lawyer as her legal hit man.
Nobody would hear the case, and word came down from the E-GOP (via Michael Medved for one) that the issue would not be countenanced in the GOP, either. Obama was to be given a clear glide slope to the White House so the Chamber's biggest members could get rid of employer-paid health insurance.
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.