Senator Ted Cruz Was For The Constitution, Before He Turned Against It…

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | 1/12/2016 | Sundance

[Aria]

When Cruz was my constitutional law student at Harvard, he aced the course after making a big point of opposing my views in class — arguing stridently for sticking with the original meaning against the idea of a more elastic living Constitution whenever such ideas came up. I enjoyed jousting with him, but Ted never convinced me — nor did I convince him. At least he was consistent in those days. Now, he seems to be a fair weather originalist, abandoning that method’s narrow constraints when it suits his ambition”… ~ Laurence H Tribe (Harvard)

[Mariner]

"the candidate who has actually defended sovereignty of US law"

And did so as an NBC: Natural Born Canadian.

[AFret.]

And did so as an NBC: Natural Born Canadian.

---

Ha!...Thanks.

[Kenny]

If you think all this furor is stupid now, wait til Cruz is the nominee. It would be non-stop 24/7.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

This used to be posted at the top of the page on FR for a while. A good simple explanation from the Cato Institute (always ask yourself should you be listening to those who revere or despise the Constitution on what it means). http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3060736/posts

"No, actually, and it's not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen" of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. (The Founding Fathers didn't want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)

What's a "natural born citizen"? The Constitution doesn't say, but the Framers; understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents - in a manner regulated by federal law - and birth within the nation's territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.

There's no ideological debate here: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson - who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases - co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain's eligibility. Recall that McCain - lately one of Cruz's chief antagonists - was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth - as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later; or who isn't a citizen at all - can be president.

So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That's an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens - or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere - citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.

That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 - Cruz was born in 1970 - someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.

So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there's no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn't have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn't have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)"

In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn't be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain; and could've said about Obama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater; Cruz is certainly not the hypothetical "foreigner" who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.

[taxcontrol]

More lies and BS.

The Constitution enumerates and specifically vests the authority of the determination for the rules of naturalization (who does and who does not need to be naturalized) with Congress via Article I Section 8.

Congress passed the Naturalization act of 1790, signed by George Washington into law to exercise that authority. Since then, the rules of naturalization have been repealed and replace via various acts of Congress.

Further, the 14th amendment re-established jus soli as justification for citizenship at birth if born on US soil.

All of this is codified in Title 8 section 1401 of the US code. Subsection G qualifies Sen Cruz via his mothers US citizenship as he was at birth.

[demshateGod]

Have you heard of DC vs Heller? GWB’s solicitor general was arguing that 2A was a corporate right. Who was arguing on the other side? Cruz has words, Trump has billions. Has Trump ever done anything with those billions to further the cause of liberty? The fact is, he’s used his money and power for himself; even when liberty would be sacrificed.

[Red Steel]

If this is about the recent news video of Tribe talking about Cruz, his former student, Tribe eviscerates Cruz.

[doug6352]

Cruz’s status is not in any doubt. He was a US citizen at birth, and that makes him a natural born citizen.

This is a phony Trumped-up issue.

I do wonder why Lawrence Tribe hates Cruz. There seems to be a deep animosity there. Did Ted beat his former professor in a Supreme Court case?

[erkelly]

Here is how I see it, the constitution was not written by a bunch of lawyers, it was written by a group of men from every walk of life, who began the constitution: WE THE PEOPLE . . .

The constitution was written by the people for the people, not for a bunch of lawyers to twist, mangle, and distort. The constitution was written so that a person with a reasonable degree of literacy could understand it.

We, the people, do not need a bunch of lawyers to tell us what the constitution means, it is intended for us to understand it ourselves and make judgments accordingly.

So read the constitution for yourself, it can be understood. If there are a few things that are unclear, you can go back in history and figure it out. A plain reading of the constitution clearly states that neither Obama nor Cruz are eligible for the office of President, so this is a question you will have to ask yourself. Do you believe the constitution as written or not. Do you want it to be foundation document of our nation or not. Or do you want a bunch of lawyers to tell you what it means today, and then again something different tomorrow, based in expediency? In other words, does the constitution mean anything at all?

So no matter how much you like Cruz (and I like Cruz) he was born in Canada to a non-citizen father, and is not eligible. So trash the constitution once again, after Obama, and permanently open the door for President the devil knows who in the future to take control of this country and do with it, and to us, as he pleases.

Instead of being all in for Cruz, what we need to do, is to make the second focus of this campaign (after stopping this invasion our southern border) re-affirming the constitution and presidential eligibility, ensuring that never again will there be an Obama (and in the process take down everything he has done in his illegitimate presidency!)

[magglepuss]

Very well said. I wish all would read it, totally agree.

[Duchess47]

Thank you.

[Boardwalk]

It may be too late already. The founders knew that the country could only be destroyed from within.

[V K Lee]

Shout it out sista’ when that lever is pulled, we can only do so with a clear conscience if we know the truth and understand the reason it is actually true. At the moment the entire matter resembles mulligan stew or hash

[Cboldt]

-- we can only do so with a clear conscience if we know the truth and understand the reason it is actually true. --

The actual truth doesn't matter. What matters, to each individual voter, is what they believe. Everybody is going to resolve this question one way or the other. There are a host of pundits and politicians to pick from.

[Ladysforest]

But you see, we cannot have the debate. To even consider having the debate makes you as a dreaded birther. It’s true.

I have been called vile things and even had my life threatened more than once - because I am a believer in original intent. The historic meaning and intent of the Founders who wrote the Constitution, and in particular, Art. 2.

Debate must be silenced before it begins - else we look like drooling fools according to the likes of Mark Levin and some of those whose candidate was born on foreign soil. And all the while the progressives who have, for the past 35 years, been campaigning to amend Art. 2 to allow for foreign born persons to ascend to the oval office - they are watching, waiting, prodding, promoting and salivating.

[Ladysforest]

“anti-constitutional law professor is telling you what the constitution’s original intent is”

You know why he is anti-Constitutional? Because he knows the original intent.

[Ladysforest]

I read the following posted on this thread by a freeper;

“hypothetical “foreigner” who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.”

See, people know - but if it’s “their guy”, then the protections given to us by the hypothetically smart man, George Washington, and the other hypothetically smart man, Justice John Jay, are just so much ado about nothing.

[Aria]

I hear you. I was even told I'm “beneath Obama”.
That is a low blow.

I believe our worst danger is that our sovereignty is under attack and like Phyllis Shafly I agree that ultimately immigration is THE issue. Cruz has had some strange behavior regarding this issue - some of it good, some of it alarming. Obamatrade perhaps is the worst in that he voted for it and then when it was too late to stop it he voted against it and from what I understand this agreement is a direct attack on Americans and the United States as a sovereign country. And then there is his wife and her employers and her papers - are we to assume that he disagrees with her totally?

I am sure that given the circumstances Cruz would be all too happy to argue that having one parent who was born in the US does not a Natural Born citizen make. I don't want to be swayed by his self-administered label of “the one true conservative” when there are reasons to be skeptical.

I still lean with Trump - and saw that Coulter today said that it doesn't matter how liberal Trump is or isn't - as long as he gets immigration right. This issue will define whether or not we remain the United States of America.

[WhiskeyX]

Unfortunately it is invalidated by the wording of the laws. You are being had by these so-called legal authorities. What is peculiar is why you should be surprised to find you are being lied to by a lawyer from either the DNC or the RNC camps. Since when did they cease to be professional liars?

Go back to your legal wizards and ask them how they propose to explain away the fact Senator Ted Cruz is relying upon a naturalization act that naturalizes an alien born child of a U.S. citizen to “make” the child a U.S. citizen at birth, whereas a natural born citizen cannot be “made” a citizen by a statutory law. The Constitution granted the Congress the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization that “makes” (datus) an alien a citizen. Show us where in the Constitution did it grant Congress the power to birth (natus) a natural born U.S. citizen under natural law and not under unnatural and manmade statutory law.