[Yosemitest]

Even the extremely LIBERAL CNN acknowledges it.

Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president
Thu January 14, 2016
(CNN)I do not embrace Ted Cruz politically, but I do embrace his right to run for president, and so should you.

Here is our first question:
Who decides whether Cruz is eligible?
My answer:
At first, you do.
We, the people, do.
We do this on Election Day when we cast our ballots with the Constitution in our hearts and minds if not in our hands.
If you think Cruz is ineligible - - if what I say here does not persuade you - - you can vote against him.

If Cruz gets enough electoral votes this fall,
then Congress
and not the Supreme Court
should be the final legal judge of Cruz's eligibility.
The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says that
Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized
to refuse to count any electoral votes that Congress considers invalid.

Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear that
each house of Congress may "judge" whether
a would-be member of that house meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says
the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here,
because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

Presidents should pick judges, not vice versa.
This is one reason why the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore was a disgrace
and is now widely viewed by experts as such.

What's the right answer?

OK, so voters and Congress decide, but
what is the right answer to the Cruz question
and how can ordinary citizens deduce this right answer?

Simple:
We can read the Constitution,
which was written for ordinary citizens.
And then we can fold in a few simple points about constitutional history, tradition and common sense.

Article II requires that a president must be either a U.S. citizen "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" - - that is, 1788 - - or else "a natural born Citizen."
Though old-fashioned, Cruz was not around in 1788.
So he needs to be - - just like everyone else running for president today - - a "natural born Citizen."

For starters, put aside the word "natural."
Ask yourself whether Cruz is a "born Citizen."
In other words, was he a citizen on the day he was born?
Was he a citizen because of his birth,
because of where and how and to whom he was born?
Note what the text does NOT say.
It does not say, Springsteen-like,
that a president must be "born in the United States."
Yet it would have been so easy to say that,
had that been the founders' legal meaning and the legal purpose !

So the question is,
was Ted Cruz born a citizen?
The Constitution says, in the 14th Amendment,
that anyone born in the United States and subject to our laws is a U.S. citizen.
Today, that means everyone born on American soil except children of foreign diplomats - - even children whose parents are not themselves U.S citizens.
Donald Trump, are you listening?

Unlike Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii - -
again, please pay attention, Donald!
- - Cruz is not a citizen at birth because of where he was born.
Cruz was born in Canada.
But neither Article II nor the 14th Amendment says that ONLY those born in the United States are birth citizens.
The 14th Amendment says that birth on American soil is sufficient to be a birth citizen.
But it is NOT necessary.

How else can a person be a citizen at birth?
Simple.
From the founding to the present, Congress has enacted laws specifying
that certain categories of foreign-born persons ARE citizens at birth.
The earliest statute, passed in 1790, explicitly called certain foreign-born children of U.S. citizens "natural born citizens."
It did not say they should be treated "as if" they were "natural born citizens."
It said they were in law deemed and declared to be "natural born citizens."
Congressional laws have changed over the years, but this 1790 law makes clear that
from the beginning, Congress by law has the power to define the outer boundaries of birth-citizenship
by conferring citizenship at birth to various persons born OUTSIDE the United States.

And here is the key point:
The statute on the books on the day Cruz was born made him a citizen on that day.

The statute conferred birth-based American citizenship on ANY foreign-born baby who had at least ONE parent who was a U.S. citizen,
so long as that parent HAD MET CERTAIN CONDITIONS of extensive prior physical presence in the United States.

On the day of his birth, Cruz's mother WAS a U.S. citizen, even though his father was not;
and his mother also apparently met the relevant rules of extensive prior physical presence.

... (Continued)

[diamond6]

Good stuff.

Thank you.

[TigerClaws]

Had Cruz’s mother not gone to the Embassy and filed out the right form after he was born in Canada, would Trump be a citizen today?

IF the answer to that is no = not a NBC.

Cruz owes his citizenship to the naturalization process.

[Just mythoughts]

Your stupid uneducated spam will never make Cruz natural born.

I have known longer than since Cruz took his first breath on Canadian soil what the ‘original intent’ of the founding fathers meant when they specifically used the words ‘natural born’.

I was born on German soil, to two American citizens, and I am NOT natural born. Take your stupid spam and stuff it!!!

[Mollypitcher1]

So what about the 1790 law THAT WAS REPEALED in 1795? And the FACT that the 14th amendment applied to the negro slaves ONLY and did not apply to anyone else, including Native Americans.