Posted on 01/16/2016 3:02:27 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz was born in Canada; he is not a "natural born citizen," and he is not eligible to be president.
And this is an issue that isn't going away, contrary to The Sacramento Bee's assertion, ("Trump's 'birther' lunacy, the sequel," Editorials, Jan. 7)
The Constitution is very precise: "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President." The founders knew what they meant.
John Jay, later the first chief justice of the United States, wrote: "the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen." Later, one of the authors of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, wrote: "Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic?"
Congress has passed a statute that says if one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, you are an American citizen, too, no matter where you were born. Cruz's mother was born in Delaware. That makes him a "citizen" by statute, but not a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution.
If both of Cruz's parents had been American-born, Cruz would have a stronger case. However, his father was born in Cuba.
Every other president and presidential candidate in our history was born either within the United States or one of its possessions. At no time ever was Calgary, Canada, where Cruz was born in 1970, a U.S. possession.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I hope you really did analyze this on your own. It should feel good and give you confidence that your conclusion is the right one. Hats off, kudos. Apply that process to anything that you find important, and you will, I promise, be shocked at how misinformed the general public is. The public is being manipulated beyond your wildest imagination, largely by “follow the herd” and “ridicule” methodologies. If you don’t succumb to that, it’s like “The Matrix.”
I wonder if Cruz signed up with selective service when he turned 18
All due respect FRiend, please trace the conversation I was engaged in with mrsmith.
That is immaterial, they simply need to be US citizens.
these first generation pols
They are some of the most strident patriots.
Allowing to run and certifying are two different things....you wrote certify
Can a State certify a candidate for POTUS who is not at least 35?
The answer is no....of course this is 2016 so what does it matter.....LOL!!!/s
The ultimate arbiter of who is eligible is the council of 50 separate State AG and/or SOS. The governors as the executive authority over those offices in many, but not all, states also are part of the council.
There's about 100 people who ultimately decide who can access their ballot.
If even ONE state declines to allow Cruz ballot access (for any reason, constitutionally valid or not) he would have to sue to the USSC under Original Jurisdiction.
The USSC would then have to decide if that state's reason for keeping him off the ballot was constitutionally valid, again under Original Jurisdiction.
I don't see that anyone but the states have standing.
Every state has it’s own rules.
Sorry, I’m watching the games tonight and can’t do much to help tonight.
The turd-le needs to join the oompah-loompah in retirement!
You mean his behavior this past week? I sure hope you’re right...
IMO, the Constitution is still the law of the land and States may not supersede its basic tenants....but is 2016 after all, let's party!!
Sorry for jumping in (awkwardly) and I did go back and retrace the thread. I’m in agreement with you (#94) about the Constitution being the final word on eligibility. But to chris37’s earlier post, there isn’t a law that keeps an ineligible individual from _running_ for the office; I guess the Founders didn’t foresee this.
I disagree. Now, although I am not a skilled researcher, I have spent hundreds of hours researching this topic. Over seven years. Specifically the dual citizenship angle.
Tribe. Lee. Natelson. Mary Brigid McManamon. All recently concurred that the original intent of the clause would certainly exclude Cruz. They aren’t birthers. They are all well respected Constitutional law professors and serious Constitutional scholars.
I was pleased to find that although my research methods are haphazard, my findings mirrored theirs. There is hope for me yet it appears.
Since I began my work long before Cruz was in the picture, Ted was clearly not in my sights. Once his dual citizenship was revealed, and the fact that he was born in Canada came out, well, I can not overlook that. Based upon my own many hours of hands-on research, I know him to be ineligible. Problematically people these days don’t care to study a topic before KNOWING something. I believe you have to take steps to learn before you can know.
The Bee knows better.
Whoa!
Not according to Obama, and his grandmother. Furthermore, no one can prove it.
To me, speaking for my self only, it seems to me if you can't meet the requirement you cannot run.
For example, a VP pick who doesn't meet the requirement cannot be on the ticket, kind of like taking a driver test when you are only 10 years old.....you can take the test but you can't get the license therefor you are not allowed to take the test to begin with.
My point is that if or when they do act counter to the constitution, there's only one place to go to have it corrected.
And I believe it is likely one or more states will not allow Cruz access.
He would not have been able to obtain ballot access in Texas when he first ran as a Senator if he had disclosed he was a Canadian citizen, and would probably not be able to do so today if he still were.
NP!
I am watching Pats vs. Chiefs right now too :D
Well,according to the strict Constitutional originalists, as long as both parents are citizens at the time the child is born, on US soil, THAT is the original intent. Mr. Trumps mother was indeed a naturalized US citizen four years before his birth. Father Trump was born in the US.
‘Allowing to run and certifying are two different things....you wrote certify’
But in that reply I said ‘allow to run’!
Anyway, the states are not changing anything in the Constitution. They are either enforcing, or not, those requirements on candidates.
Yeah, but he's good at it.
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.