Replies

thereâ€™s no question that Ted acquired Canadian citizenship at birth

Not quite. There is no question that Ted Cruz acquired dual citizenship at birth. Dual citizenship is rather common.

If one wants to argue that Cruz is disqualified because his parents were abroad when he was born, one has to be willing to also disqualify all the foreign born children of U.S. military families, all the foreign born children of U.S. business expats on their five year assignments to Rotterdam, London, or Tokyo, all the foreign born children of U.S. diplomats, missionaries, academics teaching abroad, etc. There are a LOT of such people. I don't think anyone wants to disqualify them, or seriously thinks the Constitution does so.

If one wants to disqualify Cruz because one parent was a foreign citizen at the time of his birth, one will similarly have to disqualify many people. No one wants to do that. The lynch-Cruz-crowd is ciphering out mystical readings of 18th century notions of "natural born" and coming up with the idea that citizenship in such cases would depend on the father, not the mother. So on that line of analysis, Cruz is disqualified if we are prepared, and the Supreme Court is prepared, to uphold the legal inferiority of women -- not, mind you, based on anything the constitution actually says, but on the basis of creative extemporization of 18th century common law, never tested or litigated in 230 years, but now to be imposed by the courts in an ad hoc effort to disqualify a single candidate.

All this involves far too much stretching to pass the laugh test. The trick is how to singularly disqualify Cruz without tying oneself up in knots that will boomerang on many others. It can't be done.

In point of fact, the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen." The intent of that provision was to prevent would-be royalists from importing European nobility, naturalizing them, and making them president. We don't need crazy house mirrors and strained interpretations for that purpose. The simple and robust definition of "natural born citizen" is "citizen at birth." That is all that is needed. On that standard, Cruz qualifies.

Yes, I know, some adventurous democratic scholars are now arguing that there is a distinction between "natural born citizen" and a citizen "automatically naturalized at birth." That is the kind of nonsense on stilts that is being invented. Enough. If you have been a citizen since birth, you are eligible to run for president.

“If one wants to argue that Cruz is disqualified because his parents were abroad when he was born, one has to be willing to also disqualify all the foreign born children of U.S. military families, all the foreign born children of U.S. business expats on their five year assignments to Rotterdam, London, or Tokyo, all the foreign born children of U.S. diplomats, missionaries, academics teaching abroad, etc. “

“Yes, I know, some adventurous democratic scholars are now arguing that there is a distinction between “natural born citizen” and a citizen “automatically naturalized at birth.” That is the kind of nonsense on stilts that is being invented. Enough. If you have been a citizen since birth, you are eligible to run for president.”

Sphinx, you are “disqualified” from posting on this site. You make too much common sense to be allowed to swim among the the muck of mindless, misguided, misintropes that perpetuate this site. :-)

“All this involves far too much stretching to pass the laugh test. The trick is how to singularly disqualify Cruz without tying oneself up in knots that will boomerang on many others. It can’t be done.”

This sort of logic, with its desire for consistency, is not something the left worries about. The Supreme Court certainly did not do so on the issues of “Gay Marraige” or if Obamacare is constitutional.

I fail to find persuasive the argument that the left will not persue this because it would disqualify many people or be inconsistent.

I think that’s a reasonable interpretation of that term, and if I were a betting man, I might even bet that’s how the court would come down. But the reality is that the courts have shown no interest in touching it period, preferring to let it be settled as a “political question” by the voters. As long as that’s the case, then we are all basically acting as SCOTUS justices as it relates to this particular provision and can thus come to our own conclusions as to what we think it meant or should mean. For me, I think it meant no divided loyalties from birth, and that would yes exclude dual citizens, but it would not exclude those born abroad to two U.S. citizens, particular if they were there in some capacity related to U.S. government service.