Going Birther on Ted Cruz: I didn't want to do it

When Trump started to attack Cruz for not being a natural born citizen and therefor ineligible to be president, my first reaction was -despite my loathing for the man and fear of a Cruz presidency- that it is a cheap shot. Of course he is a citizen, I said. His mother was an American Citizen and even though he was undisputedly born in Canada, it is understood that she conveyed her American citizenship to him. As far as I was concerned, “natural born” was ever specifically defined by the founders and therefore there are only two kinds of citizenship…..those who are citizens at birth and those who are naturalized with the former being eligible for the presidency and the latter group not being eligible.

So, while I chose not to pursue it, I did have to muse about the thought of President Obama quietly enjoying the irony. My first inclination that maybe there was some substance to the claim by Trump was when a report surfaced that raised the question of whether or not his mother was in fact an American citizen at the time of his birth in 1970. (We know, and it is undisputed, that his father was not) It seems that both of his parents appeared on the Canadian voter registration rolls around that time, and that you must be a Canadian citizen to vote. So it is possible that his mother relinquished her American Citizenship at some point, and possible before his birth, which of course would be a game changer.

But regardless of his mother’s citizenship at the time of his birth, it is in fact a good deal more complicated than that, as is brought out in the articles below. Keep in mind that this is strictly a legal question and should not be about politics. The fact is that he is an American and there is no reason to believe that he has any foreign loyalties which was the fear of the founders of our country. He came to the United States at the age of four and his situation does not affect his eligibility in any substantive way. It is wholly a technical matter. However, imagine the turmoil that we would experience if he were elected president and subsequently, a viable challenge to his eligibility was mounted. Hell, it is already causing some degree of turmoil, as though there was not enough already.

Finally, I will say that I would still rather not go down this road and indeed it is not necessary to defeat Cruz. There already is more than enough to disqualify him as “the leader of the free world” and even as a human being….but the issue of eligibility is before us, so let’s have at it.

Here are a few interesting articles to kick it off. Please read them in their entirety before commenting in the hope that this can be an informed and intelligent exchange on the subject. Again, to be clear, I am not personally taking a position on his eligibility. It is an open discussion that should be about that and that only, as opposed to his politics.


Ted Cruz has a very real birther problem: The law is not settled — but the history is

The founders did restrict the presidency to natural-born citizens. Ted Cruz's status is deeply complicated

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/22/ted_cruz_has_a_very_real_birther_problem_the_law_is_not_settled_but_the_history_is/

Most who have studied the question at hand focus on the “original intent” of the founding generation. The most obvious problem concerns the meaning of “natural born” as written into the Constitution, and whether Cruz’s birth in Calgary disqualifies him. But two equally salient issues have been ignored. The first is that Cruz’s claim to natural-born status is based on his mother, because his Cuban-born father did become a Canadian citizen, and was only naturalized as an American citizen in 2005. Rafael Cruz came to the United States on a student visa, and kept his Cuban citizenship until he became a Canadian citizen. It is a historical fact (and a fact of law) that mothers did not possess the same right fathers did to grant their children American citizenship when the child was born outside of the United States. This is important.


To say that “natural born citizen” is settled law is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy. It is not surprising that legal experts Neal Katyal and Paul Clement of Georgetown took to the Harvard Law Review to argue the opposite side from Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe on Cruz’s eligibility, because the same argument has haunted past scholars. In 1988, long before the Cruz question arose, Jill Pryor wrote in the Yale Law Journal (scrupulously documented) that the question of whether a person born abroad of one American and one alien parent “qualifies as natural born” remains unresolved. The meaning of citizenship has changed over the course of American history, and yet the Supreme Court has never made a specific ruling on this part of Article II of the Constitution. Most recently, in Salon, Harvard legal scholar Einer Elhauge makes a strong case against Cruz’s eligibility; but even he does not go far enough to clarify the questionable status of a mother’s right to pass on her citizenship to her children

And then there is this


Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution

,At common law “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.

, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.



And there is more. His situation is very different from that of others who the birthers have targeted, namely Obama and Rubio…….



This is the Ted Cruz “birther” dilemma: He’s certainly an American. But “natural born” is a real question

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/22/this_is_the_ted_cruz_birther_dilemma_hes_certainly_an_american_but_natural_born_is_a_real_question/


A skill all lawyers need to develop is the ability to distinguish between a real legal argument and a fake one. A real legal argument isn’t necessarily a winning argument: rather, it’s an argument that could be expected to have some actual chance of winning the day, given various (realistic) assumptions regarding whatever authority figures will end up deciding whether the argument is right or wrong.

Arguments that Barack Obama wasn’t constitutionally eligible to be president were always fake legal arguments through and through, because there was never the slightest possibility that any federal court was going to accept such an argument. The reason no court would even consider those arguments is that they were all based on an obviously false, and indeed classically paranoid, claim: that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.


The argument that Marco Rubio isn’t eligible to be president because his parents weren’t U.S. citizens at the time of his birth– a lawsuit making this argument has just been filed in Florida – is also a fake legal argument. There is essentially no support for this position in American law. It’s the kind of claim, in other words, that can subject a lawyer to sanctions for bringing it. (Orly Taitz, the most indefatigable of the Obama “birthers,” was fined $20,000 by a federal court for bringing a similarly ridiculous claim).


The situation regarding Ted Cruz is completely different. The argument that Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution, and is therefore ineligible to be president, is absolutely a real legal argument. Indeed, the argument that he is eligible, despite being born in Canada, is quite technical, convoluted, and far from compelling.
 
Last edited:
By Mary Brigid McManamon January 12


Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.


Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.


The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. ... [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.” Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president
 
Anyone who has to add "Patriot" to his moniker...
Oh please! Not that again. Is that all you have for us today Woodie?:dunno::dunno::dunno:

So what is the point of your OP? To shed crocodile tears for Cruz? Any question about his eligibility would be multiplied ten times in the general election, and you would be leading that charge.
My position and purpose was made quite clear. Read it again if you did not comprehend the first time
 
When Trump started to attack Cruz for not being a natural born citizen and therefor ineligible to be president, my first reaction was -despite my loathing for the man and fear of a Cruz presidency- that it is a cheap shot. Of course he is a citizen, I said. His mother was an American Citizen and even though he was undisputedly born in Canada, it is understood that she conveyed her American citizenship to him. As far as I was concerned, “natural born” was ever specifically defined by the founders and therefore there are only two kinds of citizenship…..those who are citizens at birth and those who are naturalized with the former being eligible for the presidency and the latter group not being eligible.

So, while I chose not to pursue it, I did have to muse about the thought of President Obama quietly enjoying the irony. My first inclination that maybe there was some substance to the claim by Trump was when a report surfaced that raised the question of whether or not his mother was in fact an American citizen at the time of his birth in 1970. (We know, and it is undisputed, that his father was not) It seems that both of his parents appeared on the Canadian voter registration rolls around that time, and that you must be a Canadian citizen to vote. So it is possible that his mother relinquished her American Citizenship at some point, and possible before his birth, which of course would be a game changer.

But regardless of his mother’s citizenship at the time of his birth, it is in fact a good deal more complicated than that, as is brought out in the articles below. Keep in mind that this is strictly a legal question and should not be about politics. The fact is that he is an American and there is no reason to believe that he has any foreign loyalties which was the fear of the founders of our country. He came to the United States at the age of four and his situation does not affect his eligibility in any substantive way. It is wholly a technical matter. However, imagine the turmoil that we would experience if he were elected president and subsequently, a viable challenge to his eligibility was mounted. Hell, it is already causing some degree of turmoil, as though there was not enough already.

Finally, I will say that I would still rather not go down this road and indeed it is not necessary to defeat Cruz. There already is more than enough to disqualify him as “the leader of the free world” and even as a human being….but the issue of eligibility is before us, so let’s have at it.

Here are a few interesting articles to kick it off. Please read them in their entirety before commenting in the hope that this can be an informed and intelligent exchange on the subject. Again, to be clear, I am not personally taking a position on his eligibility. It is an open discussion that should be about that and that only, as opposed to his politics.


Ted Cruz has a very real birther problem: The law is not settled — but the history is

The founders did restrict the presidency to natural-born citizens. Ted Cruz's status is deeply complicated

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/22/ted_cruz_has_a_very_real_birther_problem_the_law_is_not_settled_but_the_history_is/

Most who have studied the question at hand focus on the “original intent” of the founding generation. The most obvious problem concerns the meaning of “natural born” as written into the Constitution, and whether Cruz’s birth in Calgary disqualifies him. But two equally salient issues have been ignored. The first is that Cruz’s claim to natural-born status is based on his mother, because his Cuban-born father did become a Canadian citizen, and was only naturalized as an American citizen in 2005. Rafael Cruz came to the United States on a student visa, and kept his Cuban citizenship until he became a Canadian citizen. It is a historical fact (and a fact of law) that mothers did not possess the same right fathers did to grant their children American citizenship when the child was born outside of the United States. This is important.


To say that “natural born citizen” is settled law is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy. It is not surprising that legal experts Neal Katyal and Paul Clement of Georgetown took to the Harvard Law Review to argue the opposite side from Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe on Cruz’s eligibility, because the same argument has haunted past scholars. In 1988, long before the Cruz question arose, Jill Pryor wrote in the Yale Law Journal (scrupulously documented) that the question of whether a person born abroad of one American and one alien parent “qualifies as natural born” remains unresolved. The meaning of citizenship has changed over the course of American history, and yet the Supreme Court has never made a specific ruling on this part of Article II of the Constitution. Most recently, in Salon, Harvard legal scholar Einer Elhauge makes a strong case against Cruz’s eligibility; but even he does not go far enough to clarify the questionable status of a mother’s right to pass on her citizenship to her children

And then there is this


Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution

,At common law “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.

, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.



And there is more. His situation is very different from that of others who the birthers have targeted, namely Obama and Rubio…….



This is the Ted Cruz “birther” dilemma: He’s certainly an American. But “natural born” is a real question

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/22/this_is_the_ted_cruz_birther_dilemma_hes_certainly_an_american_but_natural_born_is_a_real_question/


A skill all lawyers need to develop is the ability to distinguish between a real legal argument and a fake one. A real legal argument isn’t necessarily a winning argument: rather, it’s an argument that could be expected to have some actual chance of winning the day, given various (realistic) assumptions regarding whatever authority figures will end up deciding whether the argument is right or wrong.

Arguments that Barack Obama wasn’t constitutionally eligible to be president were always fake legal arguments through and through, because there was never the slightest possibility that any federal court was going to accept such an argument. The reason no court would even consider those arguments is that they were all based on an obviously false, and indeed classically paranoid, claim: that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.


The argument that Marco Rubio isn’t eligible to be president because his parents weren’t U.S. citizens at the time of his birth– a lawsuit making this argument has just been filed in Florida – is also a fake legal argument. There is essentially no support for this position in American law. It’s the kind of claim, in other words, that can subject a lawyer to sanctions for bringing it. (Orly Taitz, the most indefatigable of the Obama “birthers,” was fined $20,000 by a federal court for bringing a similarly ridiculous claim).


The situation regarding Ted Cruz is completely different. The argument that Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution, and is therefore ineligible to be president, is absolutely a real legal argument. Indeed, the argument that he is eligible, despite being born in Canada, is quite technical, convoluted, and far from compelling.

The situation is different- but Cruz is still eligible.

It is fun watching the GOP attack each other on the issue= Trump is playing this like a fisherman playing a fish.
 
yeah sure you didn't want to:cuckoo:
We all know you have to be born in America to be president. Your mother doesn't get to go to Canada for the free healthcare, get you a Canadian birth certificate.

I hope Mexican Americans go down south of the border and have lots of American babies.

Or terrorist Muslim Isis sympathizers born in America can go to Iraq and father hundreds of Americans with hundreds of women. Would they all be Americans?
 
Anyone who has to add "Patriot" to his moniker...
Oh please! Not that again. Is that all you have for us today Woodie?:dunno::dunno::dunno:

So what is the point of your OP? To shed crocodile tears for Cruz? Any question about his eligibility would be multiplied ten times in the general election, and you would be leading that charge.


I think the Tea Party right need to look up the word HYPOCRISY--and brand that in their brains.

I mean for 4 long years the Tea Party, Right wing talk radio FOX news and Donald Trump hounded Barack Obama about a birth certificate. He finally produces one showing himself born on US soil.

What does the Tea Party do next? They put up a candidate to run for POTUS that was born in CANADA. This is how inept the Tea Party is. They must believe that the American public doesn't have a memory that goes over 4 years--LOL

This Turkey ain't gonna fly with the American Public.

Ted_Cruz_El_Cubano_De_Canada%25CC%2581_LARGE.jpg
 
Today natural born could mean a baby naturally conceived by man and woman from the birth canal of a woman rather than a test tube baby. Cloning humans is illegal all over the world but a mad scientist could clone Abraham Lincoln using DNA from Old Abe's teeth pulp.
 
Today natural born could mean a baby naturally conceived by man and woman from the birth canal of a woman rather than a test tube baby. Cloning humans is illegal all over the world but a mad scientist could clone Abraham Lincoln using DNA from Old Abe's teeth pulp.
Speaking o Lincoln....I Will Not Vote Republican Until Abe Lincoln Comes Back From The Dead

Aside from that, I have little doubt that if the day comes when a person who had been born to a same sex couple-with a little help from their medical friends - runs for president, the yahoo religious wing nutters will be howling about how he or she is not natural born.
 
Anyone who has to add "Patriot" to his moniker...
Oh please! Not that again. Is that all you have for us today Woodie?:dunno::dunno::dunno:

So what is the point of your OP? To shed crocodile tears for Cruz? Any question about his eligibility would be multiplied ten times in the general election, and you would be leading that charge.


I think the Tea Party right need to look up the word HYPOCRISY--and brand that in their brains.

I mean for 4 long years the Tea Party, Right wing talk radio FOX news and Donald Trump hounded Barack Obama about a birth certificate. He finally produces one showing himself born on US soil.

What does the Tea Party do next? They put up a candidate to run for POTUS that was born in CANADA. This is how inept the Tea Party is. They must believe that the American public doesn't have a memory that goes over 4 years--LOL

This Turkey ain't gonna fly with the American Public.

Ted_Cruz_El_Cubano_De_Canada%25CC%2581_LARGE.jpg

I asked what the point of the OP was, Obviously, you don't have a clue.
 
Update!!

Bloomberg reported Thursday that a Houston attorney by the name of Newton B. Schwartz Sr. filed suit in federal court this week asking for clarification of “natural-born citizen” and thus whether Cruz can run.

The 85-year-old trial lawyer asked that the case be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court before the Iowa caucus to avoid “chaos.” “The country will be in chaos if he’s elected president or vice president and this goes to trial then,” Schwartz told Bloomberg. “If he gets cleared, he gets cleared. Let’s just get this thing settled before the primaries.”

That’s pretty much was Trump was saying Thursday. It’s not settled, and he’s right. But of more concern, Trump said, is the danger the question poses to Republican prospects up and down the ballot in 2016. As he said, “You can’t do that to the party.” Donald Trump is right that Ted Cruz’s Canadian birth is a serious problem for the GOP
 
When Trump started to attack Cruz for not being a natural born citizen and therefor ineligible to be president, my first reaction was -despite my loathing for the man and fear of a Cruz presidency- that it is a cheap shot. Of course he is a citizen, I said. His mother was an American Citizen and even though he was undisputedly born in Canada, it is understood that she conveyed her American citizenship to him. As far as I was concerned, “natural born” was ever specifically defined by the founders and therefore there are only two kinds of citizenship…..those who are citizens at birth and those who are naturalized with the former being eligible for the presidency and the latter group not being eligible.

So, while I chose not to pursue it, I did have to muse about the thought of President Obama quietly enjoying the irony. My first inclination that maybe there was some substance to the claim by Trump was when a report surfaced that raised the question of whether or not his mother was in fact an American citizen at the time of his birth in 1970. (We know, and it is undisputed, that his father was not) It seems that both of his parents appeared on the Canadian voter registration rolls around that time, and that you must be a Canadian citizen to vote. So it is possible that his mother relinquished her American Citizenship at some point, and possible before his birth, which of course would be a game changer.

But regardless of his mother’s citizenship at the time of his birth, it is in fact a good deal more complicated than that, as is brought out in the articles below. Keep in mind that this is strictly a legal question and should not be about politics. The fact is that he is an American and there is no reason to believe that he has any foreign loyalties which was the fear of the founders of our country. He came to the United States at the age of four and his situation does not affect his eligibility in any substantive way. It is wholly a technical matter. However, imagine the turmoil that we would experience if he were elected president and subsequently, a viable challenge to his eligibility was mounted. Hell, it is already causing some degree of turmoil, as though there was not enough already.

Finally, I will say that I would still rather not go down this road and indeed it is not necessary to defeat Cruz. There already is more than enough to disqualify him as “the leader of the free world” and even as a human being….but the issue of eligibility is before us, so let’s have at it.

Here are a few interesting articles to kick it off. Please read them in their entirety before commenting in the hope that this can be an informed and intelligent exchange on the subject. Again, to be clear, I am not personally taking a position on his eligibility. It is an open discussion that should be about that and that only, as opposed to his politics.


Ted Cruz has a very real birther problem: The law is not settled — but the history is

The founders did restrict the presidency to natural-born citizens. Ted Cruz's status is deeply complicated

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/22/ted_cruz_has_a_very_real_birther_problem_the_law_is_not_settled_but_the_history_is/

Most who have studied the question at hand focus on the “original intent” of the founding generation. The most obvious problem concerns the meaning of “natural born” as written into the Constitution, and whether Cruz’s birth in Calgary disqualifies him. But two equally salient issues have been ignored. The first is that Cruz’s claim to natural-born status is based on his mother, because his Cuban-born father did become a Canadian citizen, and was only naturalized as an American citizen in 2005. Rafael Cruz came to the United States on a student visa, and kept his Cuban citizenship until he became a Canadian citizen. It is a historical fact (and a fact of law) that mothers did not possess the same right fathers did to grant their children American citizenship when the child was born outside of the United States. This is important.


To say that “natural born citizen” is settled law is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy. It is not surprising that legal experts Neal Katyal and Paul Clement of Georgetown took to the Harvard Law Review to argue the opposite side from Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe on Cruz’s eligibility, because the same argument has haunted past scholars. In 1988, long before the Cruz question arose, Jill Pryor wrote in the Yale Law Journal (scrupulously documented) that the question of whether a person born abroad of one American and one alien parent “qualifies as natural born” remains unresolved. The meaning of citizenship has changed over the course of American history, and yet the Supreme Court has never made a specific ruling on this part of Article II of the Constitution. Most recently, in Salon, Harvard legal scholar Einer Elhauge makes a strong case against Cruz’s eligibility; but even he does not go far enough to clarify the questionable status of a mother’s right to pass on her citizenship to her children

And then there is this


Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution

,At common law “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.

, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.



And there is more. His situation is very different from that of others who the birthers have targeted, namely Obama and Rubio…….



This is the Ted Cruz “birther” dilemma: He’s certainly an American. But “natural born” is a real question

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/22/this_is_the_ted_cruz_birther_dilemma_hes_certainly_an_american_but_natural_born_is_a_real_question/


A skill all lawyers need to develop is the ability to distinguish between a real legal argument and a fake one. A real legal argument isn’t necessarily a winning argument: rather, it’s an argument that could be expected to have some actual chance of winning the day, given various (realistic) assumptions regarding whatever authority figures will end up deciding whether the argument is right or wrong.

Arguments that Barack Obama wasn’t constitutionally eligible to be president were always fake legal arguments through and through, because there was never the slightest possibility that any federal court was going to accept such an argument. The reason no court would even consider those arguments is that they were all based on an obviously false, and indeed classically paranoid, claim: that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.


The argument that Marco Rubio isn’t eligible to be president because his parents weren’t U.S. citizens at the time of his birth– a lawsuit making this argument has just been filed in Florida – is also a fake legal argument. There is essentially no support for this position in American law. It’s the kind of claim, in other words, that can subject a lawyer to sanctions for bringing it. (Orly Taitz, the most indefatigable of the Obama “birthers,” was fined $20,000 by a federal court for bringing a similarly ridiculous claim).


The situation regarding Ted Cruz is completely different. The argument that Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution, and is therefore ineligible to be president, is absolutely a real legal argument. Indeed, the argument that he is eligible, despite being born in Canada, is quite technical, convoluted, and far from compelling.

The situation is different- but Cruz is still eligible.

It is fun watching the GOP attack each other on the issue= Trump is playing this like a fisherman playing a fish.


And the bobble-head RW idiots are lining up, furiously nodding their heads up and down at every lie Drumpf tells.

Funny stuff.
 

Forum List

Back
Top