Boss
Take a Memo:
Moments after announcing his intentions of seeking the GOP nomination for President of the US, Ted Cruz was being relentlessly attacked by the left and by establishment republicans in forums and social media across America. At the forefront of the attackers are the New Birthers! Those who are going to question the legitimacy of Cruz as a candidate on the basis of his birth in Canada.
I think it's an interesting illustration of how hypocritical the left is. Seems that suddenly, proper vetting of candidates and verifying eligibility is very important, and people aren't nutbags for calling birth into question. I suspect, over the course of the next Republican administration, we're going to be treated to a myriad of issues where they've suddenly had a change of heart regarding presidential powers and what a president can do Constitutionally. This should be very interesting to watch unfold. But, I digress...
The point of this OP was supposed to be about Cruz and his eligibility to run. Here's the simple thing to remember... Cruz has made a career of Constitutional law, so he should certainly know if he is legally eligible to run for president. I can't imagine how he has been so successful trying Constitutional law and not know this. So just a general common sense rationalization leads me to believe the man is certainly eligible to run.
Just for shits and giggles, we can go back and look at what the SCOTUS has ruled in the past with regards to this issue... and yes, it has come up before, several times, as a matter of fact. I think it was VanBuren and maybe Millard Filmore or Benjamin Harrison? I can't recall, but a couple of times there was a question regarding eligibility and the SCOTUS had to rule. The most recent ruling was regarding McCain's candidacy. Now, different aspects were in question with regard to all these cases, but the one thing that remains consistent is the ultimate ruling handed down in those cases.
Follow this closely because it is where most people get confused. Whenever the issue of eligibility is not clear one way or the other... When it all depends on how you are interpreting "natural born citizen" and it can be taken to mean two different things or applied different ways according to how it is interpreted... This means the question of eligibility is ambiguous. When this is the case, the SCOTUS has consistently ruled in favor of the 'will of the people'. The candidate is allowed to run unless you can establish clearly they are ineligible to run... it cannot be ambiguous.
This is precisely why there was no success in challenging Obama's eligibility in the SCOTUS.
I think it's an interesting illustration of how hypocritical the left is. Seems that suddenly, proper vetting of candidates and verifying eligibility is very important, and people aren't nutbags for calling birth into question. I suspect, over the course of the next Republican administration, we're going to be treated to a myriad of issues where they've suddenly had a change of heart regarding presidential powers and what a president can do Constitutionally. This should be very interesting to watch unfold. But, I digress...
The point of this OP was supposed to be about Cruz and his eligibility to run. Here's the simple thing to remember... Cruz has made a career of Constitutional law, so he should certainly know if he is legally eligible to run for president. I can't imagine how he has been so successful trying Constitutional law and not know this. So just a general common sense rationalization leads me to believe the man is certainly eligible to run.
Just for shits and giggles, we can go back and look at what the SCOTUS has ruled in the past with regards to this issue... and yes, it has come up before, several times, as a matter of fact. I think it was VanBuren and maybe Millard Filmore or Benjamin Harrison? I can't recall, but a couple of times there was a question regarding eligibility and the SCOTUS had to rule. The most recent ruling was regarding McCain's candidacy. Now, different aspects were in question with regard to all these cases, but the one thing that remains consistent is the ultimate ruling handed down in those cases.
Follow this closely because it is where most people get confused. Whenever the issue of eligibility is not clear one way or the other... When it all depends on how you are interpreting "natural born citizen" and it can be taken to mean two different things or applied different ways according to how it is interpreted... This means the question of eligibility is ambiguous. When this is the case, the SCOTUS has consistently ruled in favor of the 'will of the people'. The candidate is allowed to run unless you can establish clearly they are ineligible to run... it cannot be ambiguous.
This is precisely why there was no success in challenging Obama's eligibility in the SCOTUS.
