Posted on 02/10/2016 1:55:32 PM PST by drewh
With Ted Cruz the victor of the first contest of the GOP nominating calendar, we can no longer avoid the question mischievously posed by Donald Trump: Is Cruz ineligible to be president? Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. The Constitution says that only a “natural born citizen†can be president. Is Cruz a natural born citizen? (You may recall that before he attacked Cruz on this front, Trump spent months flogging a ludicrous version of this critique against President Obama, who was actually born in the United States, unlike Cruz.)
The words natural born citizen, and their original meaning at the time that this constitutional clause was crafted, go a long way to answering this question. In founding-era America, like today, a person could be a citizen by virtue of birth on American territory; a citizen by virtue of a statute that granted citizenship to him at birth; a “naturalized†citizen, meaning one who entered the country as an alien but later obtained citizenship via a process determined by law; and a foreigner.
A natural born citizen cannot be a foreigner. Foreigners are not citizens. A natural born citizen cannot be a person who was naturalized. Those people are not born citizens; they’re born aliens. Most important for the purposes of the Cruz question, a natural born citizen cannot be someone whose birth entitled him to citizenship because of a statute—in this case a statute that confers citizenship on a person born abroad to an American parent. In the 18th century, as now, the word natural meant “in the regular course of things.†Then, as now, almost all Americans obtained citizenship by birth in this country, not by birth to Americans abroad. The natural way to obtain citizenship, then, was (and is) by being born in this country. Because Cruz was not “natural bornâ€â€”not born in the United States—he is ineligible for the presidency, under the most plausible interpretation of the Constitution.
2nd Division Vet is a Cruz bundler, and NWO insider. He knows what is going on. Just doesn’t like that the rest of us are catching on to how we have been played.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.†- James Madison, May 22, 1789
I don’t find Professor Posner’s reasoning sound. To be vying for election but to not be able to be President if elected seems like a tangible harm that is not speculative. To go to all the expense and effort of becoming the President only then to not be able to be President is not in the least less than a real prospect of substantial harm. Judge Posner is highly regarded but his son’s reasoning in this brief article seems quite flawed.
The only Canadian too.
Nice quote, “The Papers of James Madison”, which you have thus introduced me to, will provide interesting reading!
If this were 1790 there’d be no doubt about it.
The law changed and the interpretation of the Constitution has never been made by the Supreme Court.
Not that I consider Scotus to be an honest broker on this.
Try reading the entire sentence but that would mean paying attention to all the words instead of three. Oh well have fun
In the recent IL and NH ballot challenges, the elections commissions were split on that point. IL said it had the power to rule on the merits, NH said it was not competent to rule on the merits. The IL ruling was "summary," did not discuss the objectors argument at all. Just picked one side, and said that's it. Totally flawed procedure by the election commission.
I come down on the side that election commissions and secretaries of state are comptent to rule on the question, in order to protect the integrity of the primary ballot. If the parties don't like that, they can quit conducting primaries. First presidential primary in the US was 1921 or so, IIRC.
Hummm, I seem to remember that as well.
Well, in Illinois they did.
It was a court decision by the way but it’s OK.
Oh, and more than one court
Soil matters, being in the U.S. military matters, diplomat mattes and both parents being U.S. citizens matter.
Just having 1 U.S. mom and being born in a foreign land does not qualify.
I know you know that, and do not understand why you pretend it's not true. Just because you wish it was the case does not mean it is the case.
For the record, the DNC along with GOPe will shop a federal judge to disqualify Cruz if he is leading.
Anyhow, I don't think it will happen. After the dirty tricks in Iowa, and future Primary will probably not be good for Cruz. No one likes a cheater.
Cruz is not eligible and he knows it!
Trump is considering Ted for VP, so Cruz must be eligible now.
The federal government said SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett defined a natural born citizen.
You better be wearing your asbestos underwear.
Saint Cruz will not be mocked.
Seems that natural born citizen should be born inside the borders and not an immigrant, but what do I know.
Pray America wakes
Eric Posner is a radical Chicago leftist. He doesn’t really believe this nonsense. He is just being a wise guy, mocking the Constitution.
It is highly unlikely Cruz will be nominated. If nominated, his eligibility will be vociferously challenged. If he survives that he doesn’t stand a chance of stitching together a winnable electoral coalition. Thus a vote for Cruz is a vote for socialism with Sanders elected.
For all the Cruzettes who feel this isn’t fair, I am sorry but we’ve cancelled participation trophies this year.
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.