Cruz would have been one of the Founding Fathers
I would appreciate your opinions.
Yes. Exactly.
Get a life.
How many of the founding fathers were foreign born?
He would have been.
Cruz supporters don’t care.
They claim to hold the moral high-ground, but they’ll crap all over the Constitution if it suits them.
If a half-black homosexual drug-addict taqiyya/kitman Mooslim Marxist “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia” can be US president, anybody can be US president.
Per the Naturalization Act of 1790, Passed by the first Congress and signed by President George Washington, yes, Sen Cruz would be eligible.
Anyone who was a Citizen of any kind when the Constitution was ratified in 1789 was eligible to be president.
Now get off the forum, you big dummy.
Cruz would have been eligible, during the time of our Founding Fathers there was a strong claim by the USA to all of British North America, Canada was initially kept Tory Loyalist by a series of treaties.
He wouldn’t because at that time cirizenship was passed through one’s father. His father is Cuban and hence he could not be a US citizen. Je’d be Cuban.
But let’s suppose for a moment that the foundimg fathers were around today. Does anyone think for a moment that they would seriously consider a man who was born in Canada and thus has Canadian citizenship, of a Cuban father, and thus has Cuban citizenship, of an American mother and thus has American citizenship to run for President? Ted has essentially presented us with our very own Monty Hall problem in the 2016 election.
Where were all you concern trolls in 07?
Jim, has your position changed in regard to the eligibility of Ted Cruz and your attitude towards those who claim he isn’t?
Thanks for posing this terrific question. It seems that Cruz would not have been eligible for POTUS back in the time of Adams and Jefferson if natural born means, as I have always understood it to mean, to be born within the United States. Of course, circumstances have led to many treatises on what it does mean over the traverse of time, with foreign Army bases and what not, and none of us actually know what it means, now. Again, thanks.
That being said remember if we are talking about the time of the founding then he would be eligible because he would be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. At the time of the adoption the NBC requirement did not apply. One need only be a citizen at that time. This is assuming of course the framers would have considered Cruz a citizen due to his mothers status which that itself may even be questionable.
“At this point, what difference does it make?”
Ha. Seriously, I don’t think the answer to this question actually matters one way or the other.
I don’t think it will be addressed, which may be a shame because I think we’re going to see more candidates with similar situations in the future.
The point of bringing up this whole issue is to use it strategically in the war of patriots vs. useful pawns of tyrants.
Just raising the question plants that little seed of doubt, which is all they need/want to accomplish their goal here, mainly distract, keep the enemy busy with having to deal with one “issue” after another.
That is not to say I think he is a NBC or not. I’m more concerned with them using it as a strategic weapon in the war against Liberty and the common man (us), and it’s sad that they, at times, so easily succeed.
These people were the Son's of former citizens of Great Britain.
I think that if Ted Cruse has a Mother or Father who was a U.S. citizen he should be eligible to be President of the United States. After All Obama’s election to that Position seems to have validated that already.
Jus soli per Antonin Scalia
I have maintained all along that U.S. Senator Cruz is completely and totally Constitutionally eligible to hold our nation’s highest office.
I have also Tweeted to Mr. Donald Trump to please abandon this topic.