Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No question Ted Cruz is eligible to be president
The Bryan-College Station Eagle ^ | January 10, 2016 | The Editorial Board

Posted on 01/09/2016 11:04:44 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

-- U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1

It is easy to ignore the often-hateful blatherings of Donald Trump, but his questioning of Ted Cruz' eligibility to be president needs an answer. And that answer is a clear "yes."

Trump knows very well that Cruz is eligible, but in his desperation to stave off a surging Cruz candidacy The Donald will say anything.

Although he was born in Calgary, Canada in 1970, Ted Cruz is considered a "natural born" citizen of the United States because his mother was born in Delaware. His Cuban father was working in the Canadian oil fields when his son was born. Thus, the Texas senator was born a citizen of both the United States and Canada. He always has though of himself -- rightly -- as American, saying he didn't realize he had dual citizenship until it was pointed out by The Dallas Morning News in 2014. At that time, Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship, although he could have kept it without endangering his eligibility to be America's president.

Despite claims by some Trump supporters -- who still are trying to prove that Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii of a Kenyan father and American mother makes him ineligible to be president -- Cruz does not hold a Canadian passport and, apparently, never has.

Two former Justice Department lawyers, in a Harvard Law Review article quoted in USA Today last March, said, "Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Sen, Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution,"

Neal Katyal, who was acting solicitor general in the Obama administration from May 2010 to June 2011, and Paul Clement, solicitor general from 2004 to 2008 in the George W. Bush administration, said, "As Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.

"Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent -- whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone -- is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as president if the people so choose."

Surely Trump knows he is wrong about Cruz' eligibility, so why bring it up. Quite simply, Trump knows his poll numbers are ephemeral, that he has garnered just about all the supporters he is going to get. As Republican voters get serious about the election, they will settle for more serious, far more qualified canidates, including, possibly, Ted Cruz. TheTeflon Don's non-stick surface is beginning to peel.

There are many reasons to vote for Ted Cruz for president, and probably just as many not to. Like all candidates, he asks us to accept him, warts and all.

Whatever you think about Ted Cruz, he is eligible to be president of the United States -- and has been for a decade since he turned 35.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: New York; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 2016election; allcapsandboldtext; cfrheidi; crappytextposts; cruz; cruz4attorneygeneral; cruzpeoplecallnames; election2016; naturalborncitizen; newyork; tedcruz; texas; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-146 next last
To: nopardons
“likability” counts for diddly, kid, especially in this election

Is that why Cruz is doing well against Hilary Clinton even as Trump is losing to Hilary in most polls and the RCP average?

Nobody, but NOBODY, can touch Trump, in ANY poll,

Let me see....go back to 2008, 22 days before Iowa ....who was leading in the national polls?

Oh wait, it was another twice divorced liberal New Yorker.

From RCP:

2008 Republican Presidential Nomination — 22 Days Until Iowa Caucus
Poll Date
Giuliani
Huckabee
Romney
Thompson
McCain
Paul
Spread
RCP Average 22 Days To Go 23.6 19.4 13.7 11.6 11.3 4.4 Giuliani +4.2

www.realclearpolitics.com/compare/republican_presidential_nomination_2016_2012_2008.html

Giuliani was leading. McCain the eventual winner was languishing at
5th place, 12.6% behind Giuliani. How many states Did Giuliani win? ZERO!

61 posted on 01/10/2016 1:56:57 AM PST by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

62 posted on 01/10/2016 2:01:12 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
♫I don't care too much for money. Money can't buy Cruz love.♫

Or at least 20% crossover votes...

63 posted on 01/10/2016 2:02:56 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Neal Katyal, who was acting solicitor general in the Obama administration from May 2010 to June 2011, and Paul Clement, solicitor general from 2004 to 2008 in the George W. Bush administration, said, "As Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article by Katyal & Clement FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

64 posted on 01/10/2016 2:05:16 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Bryan College Station... Ok, now I’m convinced.


65 posted on 01/10/2016 2:29:10 AM PST by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Only if they were legally married by U.S. law. But they couldn’t be, as Obama Sr. was already married. Although that is just for citizenship. Natural born citizenship? Not enough case law to be certain.

Same with Cruz. And certainly a Supreme Court that ruled that Obolacare fines are a tax could also rule that Cruz is ineligible.


66 posted on 01/10/2016 2:30:08 AM PST by bIlluminati (Who is Horatio Bunce?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Citizenship is not the issue. No one doubts Cruz is a citizen.


67 posted on 01/10/2016 2:31:30 AM PST by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

One more thing, listen to a REAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER:
68 posted on 01/10/2016 2:32:32 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

69 posted on 01/10/2016 2:41:42 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

70 posted on 01/10/2016 2:48:04 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Our Founding Fathers were VERY CLEAR.



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


As Hans von Spakovsky wrote in his Commentary "An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":
71 posted on 01/10/2016 3:00:44 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: freedomjusticeruleoflaw
Citizenship is not the issue. No one doubts Cruz is a citizen.

And, if he is a citizen at birth -- which he is -- he is thus eligible to serve as president.

No one should doubt that either.

72 posted on 01/10/2016 3:02:18 AM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Born a citizen by statute is not natural born. Congress could pass a law tomorrow conferring citizenship on everyone born in China with the surname Smith. It wouldn’t make them natural born citizens, it would make them citizens at birth however... just like Cruz.


73 posted on 01/10/2016 3:06:05 AM PST by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Congress can’t post facto change definition of a word in the Constitution. This has been dealt with.


74 posted on 01/10/2016 3:07:50 AM PST by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Yes, born of citizens... And they certainly didn’t mean born of citizens foreign soil. What if Cruz had been born in Saudi Arabia, spent his ENTIRE LIFE THERE, and then came.”home” last week to register as a candidate? According to many here he is STILL ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.
Bullcrap.


75 posted on 01/10/2016 3:11:59 AM PST by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
No matter how many times you post the Naturalization Act of 1790, it was just that, an act of naturalization. The Third Congress realized their mistake and under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795.

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

76 posted on 01/10/2016 3:16:03 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Dude, maybe decaf is the way you ought to go vis-Ã -vis coffee.


77 posted on 01/10/2016 3:18:34 AM PST by Read Write Repeat (Not one convinced me they want the job yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Do you know where most people go for the best Constitutional law advice? The editorial board of something called the The Bryan-College Station Eagle. You can find it piled up next to the exit door at your local grocery store. LOL.


78 posted on 01/10/2016 3:35:18 AM PST by patq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomjusticeruleoflaw
Do you NOT believe that the AMENDMENTS TO the Constitution, ARE part of the Constitution, AND JUST AS VALID AS the Constition ? So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.
79 posted on 01/10/2016 3:42:37 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
-- Where is the wording that says such citizenship describes a natural born citizen? --

The logic goes like this: Congress has the power to make rules of naturalization. If it makes a rule that attaches citizenship at birth, without going through a naturalization process, that rule is not a rule of naturalization. But, Congress is empowered to make that rule because it has the power to make rules of naturalization.

The sleight of hand is to skip past the constitutional grant of power, and look ONLY at whether citizenship attaches at birth, and whether citizenship involves going through a naturalization process. Voila, Congress defines natural born citizen. It means whatever Congress says it means.

Congress can transmogrify "naturalized" into "natural born citizen" simply by drafting the statute so that citizenship attaches at birth, without going through a naturalization process.

80 posted on 01/10/2016 3:46:13 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-146 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson