Senator Ted Cruz Was For The Constitution, Before He Turned Against It…

…”When Cruz was my constitutional law student at Harvard, he aced the course after making a big point of opposing my views in class — arguing stridently for sticking with the “original meaning” against the idea of a more elastic “living Constitution” whenever such ideas came up. I enjoyed jousting with him, but Ted never convinced me — nor did I convince him.

At least he was consistent in those days. Now, he seems to be a fair weather originalist, abandoning that method’s narrow constraints when it suits his ambition”…  ~ Laurence H Tribe (Harvard)

ted cruz 1Mark Levine

Ted Cruz is a Naturalized Citizen, not “Natural Born”

(Via Free Republic) The question of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen” may be close in some cases, but the case of Ted Cruz is easy. Constitutionally speaking, Cruz is a naturalized citizen, not “natural born.”

Regarding citizenship, the Constitution grants Congress power over a uniform rule of naturalization, not over citizenship generally. Any citizen whose citizenship is derived from an act of Congress is thus a naturalized citizen, constitutionally speaking, and thus not “natural born.”

The basic principle is stated in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-3 (1898):

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. . . . Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

(Emphasis added.) That this principle still holds was recognized in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)— implicitly in the majority opinion of Blackmun, in which Chief Justice Burger, and Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White joined:

[O]ur law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute [and] the [Supreme] Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent.

(pp. 828-30) and explicitly in the dissent of Brennan, joined by Douglas:

Concededly, petitioner [Bellei] was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas . . . .

(p. 845, emphasis added) as well as in the dissent of Black, with Douglass and Marshall joining:

Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.

(p. 840, Emphasis added).

The argument that Cruz is “natural born” because he was never naturalized is based on the false premise that Cruz was never naturalized.

Cruz was naturalized (presumably at birth) by statute under Congress’ power to make a uniform rule of naturalization. And since he (apparently) has no other claim to U.S. citizenship, he cannot be considered a “natural born” citizen(link)

Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Election 2016, media bias, Supreme Court, Ted Cruz, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

940 Responses to Senator Ted Cruz Was For The Constitution, Before He Turned Against It…

  1. bertdilbert says:

    Well this is certainly going to make a lively debate. With Cruz as the number 2 spot it, will be all against Cruz in order to shake some votes before Iowa. I think Cruz is going to have a sad.

    Liked by 4 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Cruz is going to be like a Chihuahua with a prime rib strapped to his back and thrown in a shark tank. Oh the horror!

      Liked by 2 people

    • WSB says:

      And if he really is not eligible to run for POTUS or VPOTUS, you would think that the other candidates would want to divvy up all of Cruz’s votes…the ones that won’t go to Trump. Are there any?

      Like

  2. Del Parker says:

    While it is on Ark, that TC is going to hang his hat re eligibility, let me point out, there’s a reason it was called the “Naturalization Act of 1798.”

    To even contemplate that, following the tragedy of the Civil War, and the ratification of the 14th Amendment, it was envisioned the Amendment would create 2 classes of citizens, those that could, and those that could not be President, is inconceivable. The Civil War settled that for all time.

    I believe TC is eligible, pursuant the Law, but it’s a little too late to be having this discussion. It’s too bad that TC has to use the limited amount of oxygen he has in IA to breathe life into his bonafides. But that’s TC’s problem, not Donald Trump’s, for not organizing his timing, and leaving his campaign exposed.

    Even if TC was able to completely convince folks, that, pursuant the Law, he is eligible, there are those that believe the Law needs to be changed, and the Law is a departure, from the original intent of the founders, and then there is still the hurdle of the intent of the 14th Amendment to surmount.

    BUT NOTE this, the campaigns are now focused on American Citizenship. That’s not a battle that TC can win. Donald Trump is an American Icon.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I would suggest you not “believe” anything. He either is, or he is not. The law is meant to be precise. It suffers when it becomes ambiguous.

      Liked by 20 people

    • nyetneetot says:

      The Naturalization Act of 1798 was in response to a flood of people coming over here from Europe trying to start a French revolution style overthrow of the new country. There were a lot of deportations going on at the time.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Toronto Tonto says:

        Where did you hear that?

        I was reading a constitutional scholar who explained the origin of the natural born citizen clause, the 1790 Naturalization Act and how English common law influenced our founders.

        Natural born citizen was always understood as born on the soil. In English common law, if you were born outside of the kingdom, you were considered an alien. That meant you could not inherit property.

        English naturalization laws were tied up with inheritance law, but when the founders used those as a template for our the 1790 Naturalization Act, they realized it created confusion as to who was a natural born citizen by introducing jus sanguinis into the conversation. They believed our natural rights were derived from our Creator, not the government. No one caught the mistake when the original act passed, because it employed a simile.

        Naturalized citizens had the rights of natural born citizens in all regards except for the presidency, and they specifically wanted to exclude foreign influence from that office. So, the 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed, and the 1795 Naturalization Act struck “natural born citizen” and replaced it with simply “citizen”. All legislation since has kept that tradition.

        Liked by 3 people

        • nyetneetot says:

          Where did you hear that?

          Funny enough, newspapers and magazines from the time period in question.

          I was reading a constitutional scholar who explained the …

          Why wouldn’t you go read it yourself? There’s a enough of misrepresentations of events and people within the last 10 years and you trust someone’s interpretation of documents and events from over 200?

          Liked by 3 people

    • amjean says:

      Our constitution is not based on interlopers
      coming in and trying to change it.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. cal says:

    I think the citizen issue needs a judicial ruling in the Cruz case. They are saying he is NB because his mother was an American citizen. Using this interpretation that would make King Abdullah of Jordan a NB citizen of the US and eligible to run for POTUS!

    Liked by 15 people

  4. Colt Lending says:

    I can’t imagine the great minds that perfected the constitution did not intend “Natural Born Citizen” to mean an individual born to two U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil.

    If that was not the case, in the pre-adolescent years of the birth of our country, the European monied interests who had so much to lose by our Independence at the time, would simply finance the Barak Obama’s and Ted Cruz’s of the day.

    It is hard to believe this is the first time the question of the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” has come to the fore in the presidential electoral process in the history of our nation and was not addressed.

    I sense the new world order crowd is attempting to play us.

    Liked by 13 people

    • Karmy says:

      I agree. It seems plain and simple to me that a natural born citizen is born to TWO US Citizen parents on US soil. As the intent of adding the NBC clause for President is to keep foreign influence out of the Presidency I don’t understand why there are questions. Cruz’s father was not a US Citizen so that means no NBC. The fact that he was born in Canada to only one US Citizen parent and claimed Canadian citizenship means no NBC.

      Liked by 2 people

      • WSB says:

        Agreed. That would apply to Obama, Jindal, Haley, Rubio as well. Maybe everyone is afraid that Obama’s luck would run out if the Supremes were actually to hear the case. They certainly could not refuse to take it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • karen says:

          This is in fact different. President Obama was born of American Soil. In Hawaii. He lived with his mother and produced a birth certificate from America.

          Like

  5. NJF says:

    This is extremely tricky if courts rule on this & side with Cruz it opens up a yuge can of worms concerning a citizen raised in another country–especially one with a hostile govt–becoming POTUS. (Then again this helps the globalist agenda)

    I used the Asian drive by births as an example.

    If they rule against Cruz then what about the fraud currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

    What I found most compelling about the analysis done here….

    http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Status

    Is how many times congress has sought to definitively loosen the language but were unsuccessful.

    Liked by 8 people

    • pawatcher says:

      Thank you so much for this article- I read a similar article when obama’s NBC status was being debated and again when Romney and McCain were debated- but I couldn’t find the article, this one is all inclusive like the one I remembered.
      It really does prove the liberal progressives and the conservative progressives have the same objective- get rid of that pesky constitution’s intent.

      Liked by 1 person

    • georgiafl says:

      “If they rule against Cruz then what about the fraud currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?”

      That is the ultimate Trump target, I believe. Trump’s precision guided ‘smart bombs’ have nuclear warheads that spread radioactivity to all connections of the original target.

      If Trump is as consistent as he has been on trade deals, and other issues, do you think he is no longer concerned about the eligibility for President issue?

      Trump’s mind is like a steel trap…one that does not let go.

      Liked by 6 people

    • BenY says:

      What I found most compelling about the analysis done here…….
      Is how many times congress has sought to definitively loosen the language but were unsuccessful.

      BINGO! Especially if Cruz is who/what we think he is.

      Liked by 1 person

    • WSB says:

      Maybe just threaten Roberts again and all is solved. Cruz still loses to Trump, though.

      Liked by 1 person

    • WSB says:

      Over and above the number of times, is the fact that the authors of each of these attempts from 2003 onward must have known then that Obama was not eligible. Otherwise, why would they have bothered? Remember this was after his Democratic Convention speech.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. RM says:

    I’m sorry but I place no stock in a legal opinion authored by “Farmer John”. If “Farmer John” is later revealed to be Justice Clarence Thomas, I will give his opinion more weight. Right now, “Farmer John” holds as much legal authority as “GunKid”.
    Even though Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President, I am still voting for Trump.
    GO TRUMP!

    Like

    • ray76 says:

      I suspect “Farmer” is an allusion to authors of several letters known as The Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers.

      Like

    • Sentient says:

      The writings of the Supreme Court in Rogers v Bellei were and are easily comprehensible by anyone understanding the plain meaning of the English language. I wouldn’t care if Lady Gaga were the one to draw that case to people’s attention.

      Like

  7. The image you see of you constitution is now only a hologram.

    Touch it and it is gone.

    They will force U S All to fight or lay down before their evil power soon.

    Be prepared.

    Like

    • R-C says:

      They’ve used our beloved Constitution as a door-mat for decades now, much to our detriment and shame.

      If only we would go back to following the US Constitution, as written and legally amended, most of our problems would cease to exist. The Constitution is the bedrock upon which everything else rests: legislation, legal decisions, contracts–everything.

      Those who subvert our Constitution for their own ends are succeeding in turning its ‘bedrock’ solidity to that of shifting sand–and anyone knows you can’t build a strong, sturdy structure of shifting sands.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. WenMaMa says:

    According to the latest IOWA polls, Cruz is getting attraction despite of this birther controversy. The only way we can help TRUMP is to spread the word out – we will sit out if TRUMP is not the nominee. Because CRUZ is depending on TRUMP to fail and he calculated we will go for him – what an opportunist!!!!! This powerful “STAND UNITED WITH TRUMP” message can also go to RNC and others…..
    It will make a difference, am I right??????

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sentient says:

      Cruz supporters should do the math (to the extent that they can do math). If Cruz is struggling to win the most politically evangelical-friendly state in the country (Iowa), there’s absolutely no way he can the nomination. The most that Cruz could accomplish is mess it up for Trump so that the establishment gives us Rubio or Bush as nominee. If that happens, in 15 years, there’ll be 50 million more illegal Hispanic encroachers (and eventual U.S. citizens) in the country, and this will be a one-party state like California or Mexico under the PRI. Good luck with your social issues then.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Kaiser Roll says:

        Of the three major Mexican parties, the PRI might be the most socially conservative. PRD is clearly the most social liberal, PAN is mixed. What is bad is that none of the parties supports the rights of the Mexican people to keep and bear arms.

        Like

        • Paco Loco says:

          A Mexican citizen or a foreigner with a Residente Permanent visa can own a legal firearm in Mexico. 12 gauge shot guns and up to a .38 caliber pistol are legal. Transfer of ownership is handled by the Mexican Army and the fire arm owner issued a permit. Its not a difficult process either and only cost a few dollars(pesos).There is no concealed carry allowed or carry outside of the home. There are big time gun clubs in all of the major cities too.

          Like

      • Karmy says:

        Rubio is certainly not eligible. Even more so NOT a NBC than Cruz. He is an anchor baby.

        Liked by 2 people

    • R-C says:

      It appears to me that the latest Iowa polls were taken just before this flap really took off.

      Like

    • WSB says:

      Cruz is down in the polls. Trump is under polled, but every IA’n must vote for Trump.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. truthandjustice says:

    I’m just happy this issue is being discussed nationally at last and hope some good comes from it. I would think it would at least make more aware of this in vetting future candidates. Shame on the Tea Party that didn’t thoroughly vett and/or thought they could get away with the ruse.
    Even if it was no problem about his US citizenship, we still have the Originalist idea he needs to have TWO citizen parents – just as he said himself when running for Senate. (ANOTHER flip flop)

    We need to focus on all his flip flops too – that he is not trustworthy/”consistent” as his supporters keep spouting. Another thought is Cruz could be being blackmailed….to be used as the splitter against Trump – then dumped and he knows it. Who knows. His wife has police reports on her for being psychologically/emotionally impaired in the past. We are dealing with the DC Mafia.
    Whatever is going on, it’s quite easy to see it’s unstable and very suspicious. He says one thing one time and another later. Birthright Citizenship is just one easy to show.
    Actually, I don’t think Dems have any intention of going to court or anything. They won’t allow him to be the nominee in the first place, plus they don’t want “to go there”. Might bring back all the protests about Obama’s ineligibility, which would open up the can of worms about all the rest of them who were complicit in that.
    So in general, even without the natural born problem, Cruz has proven NOT to be who he claims – consistent, Constitutional “Conservative”, devout Christian.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. don welch says:

    the right had better get ready to go up against someone other than hillary. it will either be biden or kerry or as a hail mary, al gore. the only one that can beat either kerry or biden is trump. anyone could beat gore. i can see our next potus coming from a short list of biden, kerry, rubio and as long shots clinton, trump, warren and gore. that’s my take.

    Liked by 1 person

    • R-C says:

      Well, Don…

      …My take is that none of those will be our next POTUS; Donald J. Trump will mop the floor with any/all of them. In style; with ease.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Crassus says:

      Disagree. Gore, though flawed, would be the toughest Dem to defeat. That’s why I think he’ll end up being their nominee. Biden is a stupid buffoon who has no chance of winning the general election while Kerry couldn’t even beat poor old Dubya back in 2004.

      Like

    • WSB says:

      There have been a few WH meetings lately. I believe Bernie was just there last week.

      Like

  11. Doc says:

    My issue is that they lived outside the US for 8 freakin years! You know, when levin and Rush or anyone else talks about it, they make it sound as if it was coincidence he was born in Canada. Like Mrs. Cruz was up visiting a friend or something and magically out popped lil Rafael. No, they had given up on the US, and had become citizens of Canada. I’m sorry but when you go outside the country and live for 8 yrs and have a baby, then that baby shouldn’t automatically become a citizen of the country you long left. Especially when you are becoming citizens of your new country. Who does that? What the Cruz campaign tried to do was sneak this is. None of this will pass the American smell test. Even if it WAS 100% legal, people still won’t let that fly. I’m sorry if Levin or Rush or Cruz finds that unacceptable. Almost ALL of us grew up hearing that the President had to be born on US soil and from two citizen parents. You may be able to prove it legal in the courts, but our hearts is a whole different animal.

    Liked by 7 people

    • WenMaMa says:

      Great insight. But how can we help? I suggest we call Rush and Levin. We will make them understand they cannot make us to vote their golden chosen boy. The more they resist us the worst the outcome will be for Cruz.

      Like

    • R-C says:

      From my perspective, the issue isn’t the mother’s birth certificate–although I’ve read some accounts from people who believe that issue has a murky nature to it. To me, the issue is her citizenship status when little Rafael was born.

      Had she, or had she not renounced her US citizenship in order to take on Canadian citizenship? If she did so, the question of little Rafael’s citizenship is moot: he’s pure Canadian.

      The second question is: “What of the father, who was in fact CUBAN when he sired the child?”

      Like

      • Karmy says:

        R-C if she became a Canadian citizen she would have had to renounce her US citizenship because at that time Canada did not recognize dual citizenship.

        Liked by 2 people

        • R-C says:

          Yes, I’m aware of that–the question is, “DID she”? If she did in fact take on Canadian citizenship, then little Rafael E. Cruz would be a full-on Canadian citizen with no claim to US citizenship whatsoever.

          Like

          • ladysforest says:

            I don’t think she was in Canada long enough prior to Teddys birth. Speaking of “Teddy”. Didn’t obama drop the Hussein because it sounded to ethnic? Rafael sounds ethnic. LOL. Anyway, if the Cruzs did indeed arrive in Canada in 67 she would not meet the residency requirements. Father Cruz naturalized in 1973 I hear. I find it odd, especially considering the time period, that the wife and husband wouldn’t apply for naturalization together. They had a business, a family, had been there for years, so… odd.

            Like

      • Trust No One says:

        I’m not sure where the issue of his mother’s birth certificate came from but I think it is being used as a smoke screen for the other documents that are an issue. And a smoke screen for the fact he just a short while ago gave up his dual citizenship.

        I heard Levin carping on about Cruz having to release his mother’s BC and acting like this was the be all end all issue. I’ll listen to Levin today just to hear his head explode while denigrating all the ‘birthers’ that would like to have a real Amerikan for a president.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. runthetable says:

    Brown will be the one to step in.

    Like

  13. Pinkie says:

    Good analysis. Is Sundance a lawyer by training? Also, did Cruz take a position on this issue viz a viz Obama? I’d imagine he’s too smart for that but thought I would ask.

    Like

    • seventhndr says:

      He did. He stated NBC was someone born to two American Citizens on American soil. I’ll see if I can find the link.

      Like

    • Toronto Tonto says:

      Another constitutional scholar says Cruz is ineligible.

      washingtonpost.com — 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.

      Like

    • truthandjustice says:

      Here’s where he talked about that and his own – from 2 citizen parents on US soil when running for Senate — a little different now huh?

      “In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)

      Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

      Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

      Interviewer: “.. based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”
      Cruz: “I would agree.”
      Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”
      Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”
      Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”
      Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.”

      http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Timeout says:

    Bunk! Section 1401 of Title 8 in the U.S. Code defines what “citizen at birth” means. It says that “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth” include “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof….” In addition, anyone born outside the U.S., but who has at least one citizen-parent who has lived in the United States for more than five years, is also a U.S. citizen at birth.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sentient says:

      Cruz was a naturalized citizen at birth, pursuant to an Act of Congress.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack Long says:

      Are you saying all citizens at birth are natural born citizens?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Trumped says:

      Winston Churchill could have been POTUS?

      Liked by 1 person

      • flawesttexas says:

        The current Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, can also be President. He was born in the US

        Like

      • ladysforest says:

        Speaking of Churchill, I actually stood in the room where he was born. The bed he was born in is still there. I never thought much about Churchill until we visited his home in 2006 (HOLY WOW!! ) but as we were there I suddenly felt very interested in him. Sort of a spiritual adoption of the man.

        Liked by 1 person

    • daughnworks247 says:

      Timeout, this is for a “citizen”. It’s not for “natural born” requirements for POTUS and VPOTUS.

      Like

    • R-C says:

      The terminology in play are these two phrases:

      “Citizen at birth”; and,

      “Natural Born Citizen”.

      People can argue on the former; “what citizenship did Momma Cruz hold when she gave birth? –Seems she might have been a Canadian citizen at that point.

      And plenty of people are arguing the second phrase. From what I can see, the former derives from US Code–federal law–which derives its power from the US Constitution, which federal law cannot trump.

      The latter comes directly from the US Constitution.

      I would respectfully suggest that this issue is far from ‘settled’, as your one-paragraph pronouncement would seem to indicate.

      Like

    • Notmeagain says:

      Magic words:
      “And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
      I’m other words, citizens.

      Like

    • Ringelnatz says:

      From the Rogers v. Bellei case:

      “Naturalization, when used in its constitutional sense, is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court . . . .”

      Like

  15. georgiafl says:

    There are reasons Cruz Senior and Cruz Junior did not file papers to become citizens of the US.
    Was there a sentimental loyalty attachment to Cuba?
    Did the Senior Cruzes have the ‘revolutionary’ communist/marxist anti-American mindset so popular in the 1960-70s?
    OR – Did Cruz Senior, being smart, get courted and enlisted by the CIA during his tenure at UTX?
    Did the Bushes get Cruz Senior. the job in the oil business as a cover? Was the church ministry also a cover?
    What kind of passport did Cruz Senior hold all those years before becoming a US citizen?

    Cruz Senior did not become a citizen until 30+ years after moving to US the second time.
    Cruz Junior knew he was a Canadian citizen, but did not change it until 2014 in order to run for POTUS.

    There must be documents that would show all the Cruz family citizenship statuses every year, whether dual citizenship or Canadian or Cuban.

    Those documents need to be presented to the US courts and the public, to determine eligibility.

    Liked by 4 people

  16. bertdilbert says:

    Given the cloud over Cruz;s head and threwatened democratic lawsuit, Trump should ask for a ruling from the RNC as to whether Cruz is disqualified from being nominated P or VP! No waiting on the courts.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t think it’s up to the RNC. When obama first ran in ’08 it was Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer who certified him.
      But I think LameCherry is right. If Cruz got elected, the MSM will bury him.
      He can’t even forge a Birth Cert from the U.S., like obama did.
      Cruz has noting but speeches where every other sentence contains the phrase “the U.S. Constitution”.

      Like

      • Crassus says:

        I had a friend once tell me to never vote for a candidate who says he’s for constitutional government. According to my friend those were just code words for I don’t have a clue what I’m talking about.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. Travelchic1984 says:

    http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-different-choice-of-cruz.html?m=1

    “They” won’t let Ted Cruz get away with it as they did with Obama. LC makes the case (brilliantly) for the problems Cruz will face IF he becomes president with his Canadian birth hanging over his head. A very good read.

    By “their” interpretation of natural born, a fundamental Muslim whose father was born in Afghanistan could be the president. Dangerous waters, people. Either we have a rule of law, or we don’t.

    https://stumpknocker77.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/natural-born-citizen-vs-naturalized-citizen-why-it-matters/

    Liked by 6 people

    • georgiafl says:

      The second link has a very strong case against the Cruz and Rubio claims to natural born citizenship… shudder.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Both links, every good reads.
      Lame Cherry esp.
      “Donald Trump is doing all the fighting for you, with Ted Cruz you are going to have to fight for him.”

      Up until a few months ago, when this Cruz citizenship debate got coverage, I liked him. No more. We have very serious issues here, the DEMs?RINOs are trying to impoverish the rest of us. At best Cruz is a legal moron with Ivy League degrees. But that’s very unlikely. More likely, he’s a snake-oil salesman, an opportunist who saw a large demand at elections for somebody who parroted Conservative positions. So he started with the “Constitiutionalist” theme, really just an act. At this point I know it has to be an act, otherwise he would have set everything right with his citizenship. He has no Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) so he has no birthright citizenship. He should have naturalized himself, just like every other immigrant, then try running for the Senate.

      I am tired of liars. No Cruz for me.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Jack Long says:

      Lame Cherry has been on fire the last few days. Almost every post has been focussed on the current news events.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Reed says:

    There is some interesting info here on this subject. However, I think it’s clear that there are two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. Natural born citizens are those that had US citizenship at the time of birth, either by having at least one US parent or being born in the US. Naturalized citizens are those that didn’t have US citizenship at birth but attained it later.

    I am married to a non-US citizen and our two US citizen children were born overseas, where I was based for my job with a US multinational. One fact I can add is that having one US citizen for a parent doesn’t grant you US citizenship at birth. That US citizen, which was in my case, me, has to meet certain requirements which include a multi-year period of proven residency in the US. That prevents generations of American citizens who have not lived in the US.

    https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sentient says:

      “Natural born citizens are those that had US citizenship at the time of birth”. Assumes facts not in evidence.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jack Long says:

      Same here.

      I have a child born outside the US. I’m a US citizen, my wife isn’t.

      We went to the consulate to get a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. We had to bring a lot of documentation. It’s not a rubber stamp procedure. It took all day.

      The questions regarding mother Cruz and a application for a CRBA are pertinent. For me, having my child be a US citizen was priority #1, sounds like for you as well. The first thing you do is get the necessary documentation and apply for the CRBA.

      If there’s no CRBA for Cruz, it’s telling.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Telling … as in he’s really an illegal immigrant?

        Like

      • georgiafl says:

        IF there is no CRBA or other form, such as 400 or 420, this may confirm what may be a lack of value of US citizenship on the part of Ted Cruz parents.

        See my comment above LINK

        There may be or may have been a loyalty to Cuba, a 1960s anti-American, pro-Marxist sentiment in the minds of the Senior Cruzes or Senior Cruz may have been a Cuban or CIA agent… who knows.

        The Cruzes need to present specific pertinent (genuine) Documents and we should demand they present those documents.

        Like

        • Luck is not all says:

          My guess its they don’t have those documents. That’s why all the secrecy. In general You don’t seal your documents if you don’t have anything to hide Cruz is lying somewhere. I find it ridiculous he kept his Canadian citezenship and claims he didn’t know he had it. That is a flagrant lie. I have a daughter born in a forein country. She knew from the start that she was different, related to papers, from his American brother. No child ignores those things. Please lawyer Cruz don’t take us for idiots. That aggravates me even more. Cruz really believes the Grober’s theory. That’s a mark of a true politician IMO

          Liked by 2 people

        • Jack Long says:

          Exactly was what I was thinking georgiafl. Thanks for explaining it so well.

          Liked by 1 person

        • ladysforest says:

          His campaign stated the following; “She registered his birth with the U.S. consulate, Frazier said, and the future senator received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.”
          Kind of weasel worded. Did she register his birth as a tyke, or when he was a teen so he could get the passport? Regardless, he had also claimed, through his campaign, that to his knowledge he did not have Canadian citizenship. Why did he release his Canadian birth certificate and not his CRBA?

          Liked by 1 person

          • Jack Long says:

            I have a child who has a CRBA. We got the CRBA and a passport at the same time. You need the CRBA for the passport. Our child was 4 months old at the time.

            I agree with your weasel-worded assessment.

            Like

    • Jack Long says:

      I want to add, after reading your natural born comment.

      One of my first thoughts with my kids was, “Oh well, they’ll never be president”. I don’t think mine are natural born US citizens, even though some were born in the US.

      That mindset comes from US History in high school back in the day. The founders did not want children born in marriages with foreigners ascending to the presidency. Same principle as the ‘foreign entanglements’ statement in Washington’s farewell address.

      Liked by 4 people

    • amjean says:

      I believe the constitution states “parents”, plural.

      Like

  19. jackmac says:

    “Despite all the attention to this issue in the last week, still only 46% of Iowa Republicans are aware that Cruz was not born in the United States. In fact, there are more GOP voters in the state who think Cruz (34%) was born in the United States than think Barack Obama (28%) was. Donald Trump knows what he’s doing when he repeatedly brings up this issue- 36% of Cruz voters aren’t aware yet that he wasn’t born in the United States, and 24% of Cruz voters say someone born outside the country shouldn’t be allowed to be President.”

    http://bit.ly/1ZittB9

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Helen says:

    If he is found not eligible his delegates will belong to the RNC.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Doodahdaze says:

      Velly interesting.

      Like

    • That’s a scary thought.

      Like

      • Helen says:

        Washington Times yesterday had another story of the establishment trying to get a contested convention so Trump can’t win. In the rule changes the RNC made regarding the election, they said a candidate must have at least 8 state wins. They are now discussing how to change this to 5 states. If they did and Rubio or Jeb won 5 states and Trump didn’t get to the delegate threshold, and the RNC gets Cruz’ delegates, then we are screwed. Last week on Hannity, Reince Preibus, said he would support any candidate the “delegates” choose. Also, earlier today on Cavuto, Trump said the Congress has to clarify the law. Congress led by Ryan and McConnell will rule whatever way gets Rubio or Job elected.

        Like

        • Helen says:

          I would like to add that I think it is possible that Donald Trump could sweep all 50 states. I pray that he does. If there is a contested convention and we get Rubio or Jeb shoved down our throats then I would push for Trump to run 3rd party.

          Like

          • Benson II says:

            Trump will not allow them to make him run third party. Even his threat to run third party had them running scared and now that’s he’s even more popular he’ll use that to make them toe the line.

            Like

  21. Bull Durham says:

    Logic, clear language of the prior decisions, and the “technical” construction of both the Constitution with Amendments and the result of the Court decisions gives Ted permission to vote and restricts his candidacy unless he can change the law with a fresh decision.

    Again, Donald Trump fires an arrow and it hits the bullseye. Not only has he Laurence Tribe on his side, he has the Constitution and Court decisions on his side. A ninth grader (in today’s system a graduate student) could discern there is no ambiguity.

    It is all plain language, easy to comprehend. 2-1=1

    Ted is naturalized, not natural born.

    Though, I do think his creepy TV ads with his wife and him psychoneurally programming his followers disqualifies him for any office.

    Liked by 4 people

  22. Mo says:

    It’s simple folks! Born in Canada + ‘American’ mother + Cuban father = NOT NBC. I asked the trolls at BB & TRS why papa left the USA so soon after fleeing Batista (NOT Castro) and CRICKETS

    Liked by 4 people

  23. seventhndr says:

    Just an FYI to anyone that thinks Trump sand bagged Cruz in the 11th hour about his citizenship… I found an article from well before Trump decided to even run, where he was warning Cruz he needed to get this settled or it was going to hang over him:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cruz-face-birther-questions-obama-article-1.2159586

    Liked by 4 people

  24. Neither Congress nor SCOTUS are constitutionally authorized to enlarge or abridge the rights of US citizenship. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163,1964. The Eligibility Clause is a tool used by the People to alter or abolish government at the ballot box. See Federalist No. 78.

    If Congress or SCOTUS were allowed to determine who is a natural-born citizen, then everyone would be a natural-born citizen to ensure their job security. Like King George, III, Congress and SCOTUS cannot imagine a world without them in charge of it. The People are sovereign and may separate from any government at will, not just the British Empire. See Declaration of Independence.

    Like

    • Doodahdaze says:

      They can only determine who gets to be naturalized. Through immigration and naturalization acts. It should be that anyone with the ability to reason of a 4th grader could understand that. But they do not.

      Liked by 1 person

    • georgiafl says:

      This law professor also proclaims Obama eligible simply because of US birth and glosses over the requirement for citizen parentS and the fact that traditionally, the father determined the condition of the son. Obama Sr. was never a US citizen – if he is indeed the biological father.

      Like

    • TC says:

      She was correct up until the part where she says Barky is NBC.

      Like

  25. Mr Rational says:

    The anti-Cruz birther movement is reminding people of Trump as a birther, and seems to be attracting the same type folks to the TreeHouse.
    Sundance you are losing credibility.
    And Trump birtherism – along with his supporters – is scaring a part of the conservative coalition away.
    It is quite possible that Trump can energize a horde large enough to win election. But I wonder – is the post-modern Trump horde any better than the post-modern Leftist horde? It may be a gamble we need to take, or a lesson thrust on us; time will tell, but reading many of these comments sure makes me uneasy.
    As for the topic, the critical word is “born” – and was referenced in a few letters during the time of writing the Constitution (by both jay and Hamilton). But really? it is boring/waste of time to present a rational discussion on the Treehouse around this topic. Sundance – I wonder if you are winning the battle but losing the war.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      How much do concern trolls get paid?

      Liked by 4 people

    • Jett Black says:

      I’m going to get my 25 year old son to run for POTUS next go round. Anyone challenges him based on the age requirement, we’ll just spew the same stream of BS everyone’s spewing to avoid the law requiring the POTUS to be NBC. You can’t be conservative or any kind of patriot of the USA if you’re fine with just blowing off the Constitution so you can get a dubious personality into office. Disgusting.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Travelchic1984 says:

      Chief Justice Clarence Thomas said they are “evading” the issue of “natural born” in 2010. This matter is “a waste of time”? No, it’s the premise, the foundation upon which our founders based the meaning of natural born as it applies to holding the highest office in America.

      http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2010/04/18/clarence-thomas-were-evading-eligibility-issues

      Liked by 3 people

    • Doodahdaze says:

      Please check in with your nearest cultural marxist minder for further instructions.

      Liked by 6 people

    • WenMaMa says:

      You are not TRUMP supporter. Sundance knows his stuff, so is TRUMP, so are we the noisy majority. We just want MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, no politics.

      Like

    • amjean says:

      It is not about Trump or Cruz; its about the
      constitution and its about darn time!

      Cruz may have used Obama’s situation
      to sanctify his actions (how stupid can Cruz
      be, thinking this will fly?) and Trump is
      obviously using it to get Cruz lower in
      the polls. However, do not forget, this is
      about protecting the constitution. Its about
      protecting the sovereignty of our nation.

      Keep personal feelings out of it and try to
      see the big picture.

      Liked by 5 people

      • R-C says:

        “Cruz may have used Obama’s situation to sanctify his actions…”

        Cruz is actually BORROWING from Obama’s actions. Has he not sealed his records?

        I would submit that a candidate with ‘nothing to hide’ would not be engaged in hiding records. “Where there’s smoke…”

        Like

    • georgiafl says:

      I wear the label Birther as proudly as I wear Vulgarian and Wacko Bird.

      NO apologies for wanting documentation of eligibility.

      Including Obama’s whether pre or post tenure.

      Don’t you dare try to denigrate or disparage those who want to abide by the rule of law!

      For shame!!!!!!!!

      Like

    • flawesttexas says:

      Note that a large number of GOP Liberals attacked Eligibility folks when they raised Obama Eligibility

      Many of the same Cruz Ineligible Deniers are the Obama Ineligible Deniers…Mao Levin is example #1

      Like

    • kathyca says:

      What a total tool would say about a discussion of legitimate Constitutional issues surrounding the eligibility of Ted Cruz for President, Alex.

      Like

  26. nhtrumpster says:

    So to sum up this post:

    lineabirgit says:   
    January 12, 2016 at 2:49 am 
    
    Well, I’m confused.
    

    Like

  27. Jett Black says:

    This issue is calls, nay screams for application of the bromide: everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

    Facts: 1. Cruz not born on USA soil. 2. Cruz born to, at most, 1 USA citizen parent. It remains to be established whether Cruz’s mom had become a Canadian citizen as of the time of his birth. 3. Cruz maintained so-called dual Canadian-USA citizenship until very recently. 4. The term “Natural Born Citizen,” as used by the authors of the Constitution and those who ratified it as the supreme law of the USA, was clearly and unequivocally defined by a widely known political science work of the time by Vattel. There is substantial documentary and textual evidence proving that the founding fathers were intimately familiar with and used Vattel’s Law of Nations at every stage of our developing Republic, up to and including drafting, debating, and ratifying the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Vattel explicitly defines “Natural Born Citizen” as distinct from other forms of citizenship in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at § 212:

    “§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    Vattel goes on to address naturalization, etc. The founding fathers’ choice of the phrase, “Natural Born Citizen” could not be a more certain and clear proof that it was intended as set forth by Vattel. We can argue about whether both or which parents must be citizens of the USA, if the child is born on USA soil, but one born on foreign soil, especially of one or both non-citizen parents, cannot possibly be considered a Natural Born Citizen. Ergo, Cruz is plainly, factually and legally ineligible and anyone arguing to the contrary is demonstrating that they lack basic reading and reasoning skills or are simply delusional. This is as bad as saying a 30 year old can be POTUS, regardless of the constitutional minimum age of 35. People, including Cruz, Rubio, et al., need to follow the Constitution or admit that their engaged in sedition.

    The post and following comments here, https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ discusses the issue more completely. Essentially, we are under siege from without and within by globalists who want to destroy the USA as a nation. They have been winning, b/c we have been forgetting that we are a nation of laws and that words have the meaning they had when written, not some bastardized, colloquial meaning they devolved to after a few centuries of misuse.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Doodahdaze says:

      It is what it is. No amount of wailing and flailing can change it. NBC is only intended for one thing only. A qualification to be the President in charge of the executive branch. It has no other application. In all other cases of law and life in the USA one only has to be a mere citizen. Exception…and the only exception…the office of POTUS.

      Liked by 2 people

    • truthandjustice says:

      Yes and that is also what we must be stressing. I can’t find the link now but I remember when researching Obama’s bc fiasco about how the Dems knew he was ineligible and worked hard to get wording changed, amendments, etc. but failed for many years before he came on the scene — all for the purpose to get their anti-American people into the Presidency, etc. It all makes sense. Anyway – they finally weaseled it in and got it through by twisting, political pressures, traitors, etc. – got the Congress to go along with it and voila! Obama the destroyer rules. I imagine they have others lined up for the future and they want this to be kept where they can keep doing that…..you know – like Cruz & Rubio.

      Like

    • booger71 says:

      I would contend that much of our Constitution was constructed from Vattel’s writings.

      Like

  28. trapper says:

    Thank you, Sundance. Correctly reasoned and well said. There is NO serious argument which can be made that Cruz is natural born. None. There is, however, a cogent argument that may be made that because his mother never followed the procedures required by statute to claim American citizenship for her child, in effect she never naturalized him, so he is not an American citizen at all. By this argument, since he renounced his Canadian citizenship he is essentially stateless. I played around with this briefly a year ago but abandoned it as hopelessly contrarian, although I believe the analysis was correct as far as I took it. I apologize if this has been stated already, but I don’t have time to read 400 comments

    Liked by 2 people

    • VegasGuy says:

      “a cogent argument that may be made that because his mother never followed the procedures required by statute to claim American citizenship for her child, in effect she never naturalized him, so he is not an American citizen at all. By this argument, since he renounced his Canadian citizenship he is essentially stateless.”

      I would have a difficult time accepting that at face value since there are numerous requirements that require one to submit “something” regarding citizenship from “somewhere” along the path of growing to adulthood.

      Just a couple of “for instances”…..A birth certificate to establish a SSN. Pretty sure Cruz has a SSN. Therefore he had to present one (Canadian) for that purpose alone. That is certainly on record with SSA.

      Registration for Selective Service at his 18th birthday. There is a specific form for US citizen, as well as different forms for non-citizens & also for Dual citizens. So if he (and assume he did for the moment) registered with Selective Service, there is a record of what class of citizenship he claimed at that time.

      Those alone could put to rest the question of whether or not he “never realized” he had Canadian Citizenship until he “suddenly” renounced it in 2014. Assuming. of course, those records were not part of what he had sealed…….

      There are probably many other cases such as application for Law licence (as was pointed out up thread), certain credit transactions, application for a passport, etc.

      Trump is on to something here & knows more than he is saying at the moment…..Never underestimate Trump when it comes to counter-intellegence…….he certainly has the resources to “stir up” an issue, but he never does it without solid evidence at the ready….

      Expect this to bloom into a major issue for Cruz to have to face.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jtomka says:

        If his birth certificate states that his mother is a United States citizen, where did that information come from? It is simply what his mother told some clerk in the hospital. She may have become a Canadian citizen ( as has been questioned) knowing full well that she planned to return to the United States eventually and permanently. Did anyone verify Mom’s citizenship at the time of the birth certificate or just type it on the form? Ted could have been issued a SSN based on the Mom info on the birth certificate whch may or may not be accurate.

        My personal background is similar to Ted’s but my parents filed my birth with the State Department. Did his?

        Liked by 2 people

    • Sentient says:

      I have proposed a solution for the stateless Cruz: he take up residence on an uninhabited island of contested ownership in the middle of Lake of the Woods.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jack Long says:

      If you read through citizenship criteria you see that the main principle involved is that citizenship belongs to the individual person. No other entity can decide what the individual should do with their citizenship for them.

      The prime example is the urban legend that Obama’s parents renounced his US citizenship while Obama was in Indonesia. That is not possible because parents can’t make that decision for a minor child. That decision is the child’s alone, to be made after the child is 16 (I think).

      In Cruz’s case, his US birthright is his alone. The actions of his parents mean nothing. If, later in life, Cruz decided to assert his US citizenship he would apply for a US passport, submit a certificate of citizenship form with proper documentation, and receive citizenship if eligible.

      Parents have no say in the matter.

      As a reminder, I’m talking about US citizenship re Cruz, not a natural born condition.

      Like

  29. Daniel says:

    I get the feeling there are forces trying VERY hard to ram this idea through in order to legitimize Obama’s presidency. To delegitimize it after his term is up might mean all manner of things.

    After all, I don’t think anyone missed how many of the bazillion republican candidates were and still are of questionable legitimacy.

    Proper response to all of this it to tighten, not loosen definitions. What’s more, I would push for any presidential candidate to be required to pass a legitimate background check. There’s no way Obama could have passed one and yet there he is.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Doodahdaze says:

      An exposure of Cruz or Rubio would expose the truth about Obama.

      Liked by 6 people

      • ray76 says:

        That exposure is the great danger to both parties. It is also what Cruz exploits. He even uses Obama’s lie that “citizen at birth” is the requirement mandated by Article II.

        Liked by 3 people

      • mariner says:

        That’s why it will never happen.

        Obama was just another camel’s nose under the tent. The globalists managed to cram him down our throats, so now they’ll destroy what’s left of the requirement for the President to be a natural-born citizen.

        This is similar to the Islamic once-Muslim always-Muslim attitude towards lands and landmarks.

        Like

  30. Another problem I have with Ted Cruz is he thinks Cubans deserve special treatment. This special treatment comes at the expense of American taxpayers. We have thousands more Cuban’s headed our way from South American. Get this Cuban’s do not have to be born in Cuba to get this special treatment either.

    Not only are they abusing our welfare (Over $680 Million a year) but they are also getting the Social Security we paid for! They obviously aren’t that oppressed if once they get here they travel back and forth using our welfare money.Enough it’s time we have a president who will put Americans first. Trump 2016

    Cubans retire to Florida – with help from U.S. taxpayers
    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/us-cuba-welfare-benefits/sfl-us-cuba-welfare-benefits-part-2-htmlstory.html

    U.S. welfare flows to Cuba
    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/us-cuba-welfare-benefits/sfl-us-cuba-welfare-benefits-part-1-htmlstory.html

    Special treatment:Under U.S. law, Cuban refugees don’t have to be from Cuba
    http://interactive.sun-sentinel.com/cuban-adjustment-act/loophole/

    Cruz on Cubans
    https://www.texastribune.org/2013/09/13/immigration-cruz-aims-middle-ground/

    Liked by 4 people

  31. Mo says:

    Why is Mark Levin obsessing over this? But but but he’s not endorsing anyone yet. Hey Levinsky, WHO CARES?

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      “Why is Mark Levin obsessing over this?”

      He gets paid on delivery?

      Like

      • Mo says:

        Saw this on BB: He is sacrificing a part of his audience for the sake of his friendship to Ted Cruz. He’s intelligent so he must have calculated the risk that we are worth sacrificing for bigger and better things under a Cruz presidency. Agree 100%.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Trumped says:

          This is not about friendship. This is about money.

          Cruz strategy was to buy the radio. It worked fine. Its rather simple. If Levin keeps backing Cruz he will receive further pac money. If he stops backing him he gets no pac money as the other candidates have a different strategy regarding their pac money(TV ads).

          Liked by 7 people

          • Mo says:

            That’s just dirty. I’m glad you guys are on this like you were the Zimmerman thing.

            Liked by 1 person

          • R-C says:

            IMO, Levin has been promised a plum position in the [would-be] Cruz Administration. Levin, bragging often of his relatively minor role in the Reagan Administration, would seem to be ripe for the picking: seems to me he would love to wield the power of government, only this time, at a much higher level.

            Levin’s contortions on this issue make me sick; he is totally discredited in my view.

            Liked by 4 people

    • KitKat says:

      I wonder if he and Michael Savage will get into another mutual insult fight about this.

      Like

  32. KitKat says:

    Cruz supporters are saying that the people who are going after Cruz about the NBC issue are afraid of him, because he is just so darned awesome.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Deal paves way for thousands of Cuban immigrants heading to U.S.
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/us/cuban-immigrants/

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Trumped says:

    If Ted Cruz is eligible for POTUS then Winston Churchill was too?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Randolph_Churchill
    This means:
    Kim Jong Un could kindnap an american woman to North Korea, create a baby and raise the child to be POTUS.
    Prince William could have a lovechild with an american in London and the child would be eligible for POTUS.
    (<- think about copying that to cruzbot websites, but I got banned at redstate for that lol, Breitbart.com works. we need to nail the cruzbots and inform the low info voters )

    Like

  35. William says:

    Here is a hypothetical scenario. Once there was a prince of England who fell in love with an American woman living in England and married her against the wishes of his family. They got married and they had a child. A couple years later, the king, the prince’s father, died and the prince was next in line. To be king he had to divorce his American wife, which he did unwillingly. The prince became king of England and ruled until he was an old man. Shortly after the divorce, his ex-wife and her child returned to America. There was no future in England for the child did not qualify to be in line of succession to the throne; the child was considered illegitimate by royal decree. The child grew up in America and had a successful life. The child, a successful and grown adult, at one point decided to enter the election to be President of the United States of America. The candidate claimed to be natural born because the mother was American and therefore was eligible. At the same time the candidate was running to be president, the father was still king of England. Would the writers of the Constitution have considered that child eligible to be president?

    Liked by 2 people

  36. moray watson says:

    As a retired tax accountant, I had several Canadian born and raised clients who were children of US citizen parents, and who had never set foot in the United States (except to vacation). However, those children were subject to United States taxation as citizens thereof. It certainly appeared to me that those children were under the “jurisdiction” of the United States at birth.

    Like

  37. Bull Durham says:

    I’ll give this another try.

    Strict Interpretation of the Constitutional definition of Naturally Born means you yourself, not your mother, was born inside the borders of the United States.

    You could get a less than strict interpretation of that, thus, you could call Naturally Born if your mother was naturally born and you were born outside of the borders. Sort of using your mother’s naturally born status as yours.

    However, this is not the status of the terminology yet. The Supreme Court has not taken a case because it is only relevant to qualification of the President.

    In fact, so far, in the law that has been decided, naturalized applies to all not strictly naturally born.
    Thus, not only Ted, but all others in similar circumstances are technically (legally their status) as naturalized, except the cases of born on military bases or if anyone is born inside US embassies all of which are considered US territory.

    So, Ted is out of luck on this legally if someone challenges his status. If no one does, then no one does and he can say he is and it is too bad if he gets elected. It will be a fact.

    Who has standing in the Court to challenge Ted? The Democrats. That is who would be damaged by an illegal candidate getting elected over a Democrat. So, Trump warned Ted and the Republicans to get a court ruling on his status. Of course, Ted does not want to run the risk that he will be denied a less than strict ruling.

    Seems easy enough to understand Strict versus non-strict. The law was bent on Health Care tax or not tax, gay marriage and many other tricky or difficult matters.

    President should be strict requirement. It is there for security, so foreign born could not rule the nation. We see with Obama a man who has no native best interests in America. It is as if he was not a naturally born son of the U.S.

    Just like anchor babies. How can the fruit of a crime be allowed? That is like a bank robber being allowed to buy something valuable with the stolen funds, and allowed to keep the benefits of what he bought. Fruit of the poisoned tree is illegal and must not be allowed. And so, a non-naturally born candidate cannot or should not be allowed to run for the office.

    I suppose Ted has a fifty-fifty chance of winning in court. Maybe, it is much better than that. These justices are so thoroughly corrupted by ideology that they would vote to tear out another strict construction of the Constitution. They have done it every case they have ruled on.

    He’s such a great orator and such a great ‘scholar’, he could easily argue the case himself. He has the credentials of arguing in the Supreme Court. It would be a big win for him. I wonder why he is so scared?

    Donald would do it in a minute if it was an issue for him.
    That’s why Donald will be the candidate. He has the brains and the balls. Could you not see him standing on the steps of the Court with the decision in his hand, taking a deep bow and waving to the thousands of voters supporting him?

    Ted is trying to figure out how to do another subliminal video or finding the right Bible passage to use. The guy wants to take over the Cult Leader status not the Presidency. He is all about TED.

    And the Ted I see is a scary spook of a Canadian, not a naturally born guy like Trump.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Jack Long says:

      Laurence Tribe basically called Cruz a bullshit artist on live TV yesterday. Tribe did it in such a subtle and methodical manner that the interviewer and the censors in the interviewer’s earbuds didn’t realize what happened until a half hour later. It was right up there in “bless his heart” territory. Masterful.

      The gist of the rebuke was that Cruz was always arguing for a strict interpretation of the constitution as written, which mean that Ted knows he’s ineligible.

      Ted can’t be a stupid guy. This shows how powerful the money behind Cruz is and how beholden he is to it. So powerful he’s willing to flush all his principles for a shot at the golden ring.

      No thanks.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Bull Durham,

      You are getting way too deep in the weeds, talking about the Constitution.
      Think of it as, getting stopped by a cop for speeding, he says show me your license, and you say “I don’t actually have one, but I am eligible to get one”

      That’s the same with Cruz (probably) but if he never did it, it’s way too late. 18 years of age is the cutoff. Seems the U.S. government stipulates that if you bear a child in a foreign country, you need to make up your mind very fast if you want him/her to be an American.

      Cruz’s mother has an American Birth Certificate. For her to pass citizenship to her son is a formal process. It’s called the CRBA [Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America
      https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html
      If Cruz’s mother never applied for it, he has zero birthright citizenship. Citizenship is not casual. It’s formal. Kind of like having a Driver’s License, moreso.

      If Cruz has no CRBA to show us, he’s an run-of-the-mill immigrant. If he applied to be Naturalized (seems doubtful), he’s here legally. If not, he’s an illegal immigrant.

      Seven years of the same nightmare with obama. How’d that work out for ya.

      I’ll take a pass on Cruz.

      Liked by 3 people

    • KitKat says:

      This is one of those stupid instances where each side will have to argue the opposite of what they really believe. If the “living Constitution” Democrats go after Cruz, they will have to argue the originalist interpretation. And Ted, the so-called originalist, will have to argue the living document argument. All because of the ambition of Ted Cruz.

      Liked by 3 people

  38. Regina says:

    Liked by 1 person

  39. R-C says:

    Well, having pored through all the comments on this thread–some very cogent, others not so much, it occurs to me that we all have the ultimate power to adjudicate this issue. I will settle it at the ballot box.

    There is NO way that I will vote for Rafael E. “Ted” Cruz, no matter what. Case closed. –ish.

    Liked by 3 people

  40. Derigitable says:

    Everybody here is missing the real point. There’s actually two points. The first point is, Congress isn’t going to give Cruz a free pass, forcing Cruz to go before the courts for a determination. We know the opposition is going to push it all the way to SCOTUS. Hello? Pay close attention here. How long will they drag it out? Until after the election? Cruz may try to force it faster….”may” being the operative word here. And then we’re talking about a Liberal court that even Mark Levin said consisted of 7 Liberals and 2 Conservatives, you know, the one that legislated Obamacare and gay marriage, and Cruz has to grovel before them to ask for permission to be president? And you’re hoping that SCOTUS won’t find some bogus reason to deny him? See, Cruz didn’t get all his ducks in a row before asking for our votes, but Cruz wants us to be dragged through this process with him. In short, we pay the price, not Cruz. What does he have to lose? We have a presidency, our entire future, the future of our children to lose. How many of his supporters would jump ship just due to the uncertainty? I mean, it smells like a Bush v. Gore all over again.

    Secondly, one of Cruz’s final remaining “principles” that he and his followers trumpet every chance they get is what a “Constituional Conservative” Cruz is. And in order to be president, Cruz has to abandon the “Constitutional Conservativeness” and adopt the Liberal ideology that the Constitution is a living document, changes with the times. Well, there goes that platform.

    Cruz is finished. He should have taken Trump’s advice long before the hat was thrown into the ring.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “I mean, it smells like a Bush v. Gore all over again.”
      Times 10,000

      Like

    • Doodahdaze says:

      Cruz, the stiffs, Hillary, and the media, are done. Their time is up.

      Like

    • Doodahdaze says:

      Compassionate Communists.

      Like

    • JRD says:

      Wonderful post!

      Like

    • phil fan says:

      Subverting the Constitution is sedition I believe. Is dear Ted engaging in the felony of sedition? Popcorn, more popcorn please

      Liked by 1 person

    • OneWingedShark says:

      “And you’re hoping that SCOTUS won’t find some bogus reason to deny him?”

      You’re thinking incorrectly here — why would the SCOTUS rule in favor of THE most blatantly nationalistic thing in the Constitution? This would be their chance to water the NBC requirement down to nothing and, as we saw with ACA, Obergefell v. Hodges, and their rejection of hearing the Prop. 8 case, they are not above using judicial powers/procedures to usurp the role of the legislature by creating and destroying laws as they see fit.

      No, I think they would jump at the chance to harm America; I have no faith in them bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, to the American people, or even to the integrity of the law itself. — The Judiciary is THE most Lawless of all the Branches, precisely because it wraps its pronouncements up in ‘law’.

      Like

  41. optingout says:

    Excellent, cogent post. As you note, the definition of “natural-born citizen” as understood by the Founders is crystal clear. As also noted, others may acquire citizenship at birth (via a parent or parents) but are not natural born. My husband was born overseas to two US citizen parents (father in the military). He was a citizen at birth, but was not natural-born. Our older son was born overseas to two US citizen parents (Foreign Service) and was, again, a citizen at birth, but he was not natural born. It’s not complex or tricky or something to parse.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Doodahdaze says:

      Correct. If George Washington had a baby with Betsy Ross in Canada it would not be NBC.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mr Rational says:

      You seem to be trying to have a rational discussion.
      Just fyi – the one thing known for certain in this discussion is that “Natural born citizen” was certainly NOT well defined or understood by the founders at the time.
      The most probable source for the genesis of the Statement was Alexander Hamilton, and he didn’t even have “natural born” in his comments/letter.
      There is little reference to “natural born” anywhere.
      Their intent was that a President not be some foreign born Prince. it is meant as “no carpetbaggers”.
      Cruz was born a citizen, and that is the most logical interpretation of what they meant.
      As for the rest of this – it is making Trump supporters sound like birthers, and the author of the article quoted is political, not interested in the true meaning at the time of writing the Constitution. Because the one thing that can be said with certainty – is we aren’t certain what they meant. There are other places to research this – Sundance has lost his credibility since he has decided to become a cheerleader for Trump, and seems to spend half his time attacking Cruz (and half of that time with un-retracted falsehoods). As conservatives used to say – go look it up for yourself. This has been researched by serious people previously.

      Liked by 4 people

      • phil fan says:

        The term “natural born citizen’ was well known to the founders as stemming from English law as propounded by Vattel. Hamilton as we know was not a NBC.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Mr Rational says:

          You seem confused.
          Hamilton’s status as NBC or not has nothing to do with the topic or his letter during the development of this part of the Constitution.
          You are commenting about Vattel, 35 years earlier. Hamilton was writing during the writing of the Constitution itself, laying out an outline for this section of the Constitution, to the rest of the team doing the writing, discussing the actual document and language to be used.
          This topic is not clear, and can only be solved through inference.
          Feel free to document how the definition of NBC was “well known to the founders” – that would be interesting to see.

          Liked by 1 person

          • phil fan says:

            Your superior attitude is noted. No I’m not confused. Our constitution in this regard is based on English Common Law per Vattel. This is well known and was well known to the framers. Natural Born Citizen is not a difficult concept or “unresolved except by those who want to weaken it. Nice try

            Liked by 2 people

            • Mr Rational says:

              I take it you are not interested in supporting your statement?
              In this case “support” does not equal “just repeating it again and again”.
              Here – I’ll un-support it for you. Here is the English translation of the Swiss Vattel – originally written in French, which you purport to be “well known to the framers”:
              “The citizens are the members of the civil society : bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature”, E. de Vattell, (London, 1759), § 212, pg. 92. (App. Pg. 159.)
              This is the English translation in existence at the time of writing the Constitution. Note that it does not even use the phrase NBC. The phrasing of NBC was adopted in the NEXT translation of 1797 – post Constitution.

              There are many more data sources of discussion of understanding the phrase and its meaning at the time. Vattel is one – of MANY. And the Vattel position gets a bit weak when it doesn’t even have the words from which you claim they took the definition.

              Do you have support that says otherwise? Given the availability of other sources of contemporaneous discussion of citizenship, many in English law, by what basis do you claim the framers understanding was based on the Swiss Vattel, whose translation did not even use the phrase NBC?

              Liked by 2 people

              • phil fan says:

                What is it that you find so difficult about “NBC = 2 citizen parents + born on American soil”? Are you lacking in rationality or just commonsense. Please stop posing as the obfuscator-in-chief

                Like

                • Mr Rational says:

                  What a sad attempt at a comeback. I understand you want me to stop posting reality which contradicts your chosen world view. I understand that asking you to read is considered “obfuscation”. You can’t support your point, so resort to name calling and ridicule. That form of argument has no effect on me. I accept that you cannot support your point.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • phil fan says:

                  Okay Mr Superior go ahead and support your chosen world view while acting superior and contemptuous . Now That is a sad attempt at making your point.

                  Like

                • stella says:

                  Mr Rational is correct about Vattel. You are wrong about the two parents. It isn’t a requirement in any law – not even Vattel. At the time, the citizenship of women wasn’t even considered, because they had no rights. A child’s citizenship was determined by his father’s citizenship.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • phil fan says:

                  So Cuban father is now okay? Don’t think so

                  Like

                • stella says:

                  One parent is all that is needed. Unless you want to be a strict constructionist, and demand that only the father’s citizenship can be considered. Women got the vote in 1924 via Constitutional Amendment, so I think they count now.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • stella says:

                  As Cruz pointed out tonight (and I should have mentioned earlier), Donald Trump’s mother was born in Scotland. By your determination, Trump is ineligible to be President.

                  Like

                • phil fan says:

                  So for me as a naturalized US citizen (born overseas of 2 US citizens and promptly registered with the local US embassy) = Are you claiming my 2 children born in US of me and my US citizen wife ARE NOT natural born citizens?

                  Like

                • She became a citizen before Trump was born (yes there is proof). Therefore, Trump was born on US soil to two citizens.

                  Trump is eligible, Cruz is not.

                  Like

        • stella says:

          Vattel was Swiss, writing in French, and not about English law. You are confused. I believe that the Natural Born Citizen phrase stems from “Natural Born Subject” in English law.

          Like

          • phil fan says:

            Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS based on the founders understanding of English Common Law (natural law from whence came the ‘natural born citizen concept). We agree. No I am not confused. Cruz was born on Canadian sol not American. There is no evidence he was naturalized we have seen yet. He is obliged to prove he is eligible to run for POTUS not me. Why has he not provided this evidence, the constitutional scholar? Of course we won’t assume he is intentionally engaging in sedition, a felony, will we? Poor Ted

            Like

            • stella says:

              We will see, won’t we? Actually, if Trump isn’t nominated, I would pick Cruz over any of the other Republican nominees.

              Like

              • phil fan says:

                He’s a stalking horse for the busy globalists working hard to subvert our constitution and our nation. Don’t think you will be having the choice since Mr Cruz will be tied up in court for years.

                Like

        • scherado says:

          phil fan, your statement about Hamilton as not NBC wreaks of the dreaded and pernicious deconstructionist’s argument, which, in my view, is a form of pseudo-psychoanalytic analysis; for example, Frederich Nietzsche’s scholarship can be judged based upon whether or not he had sex with his Sister. We all know that this is the kind of intellectual fatuity that we come to expect from the Left.

          Like

          • Pinkie says:

            What do expect — they booed Santa Claus.

            Like

          • phil fan says:

            Twasn’t I who brought up Hamilton but thanks for saying that “wreaks” their argument. NBC is a simple concept and the intent of the founders is clear to those who do not want foreigners becoming POTUS. There’s a one word explanation as to why they did not such = Obama. And he hates Santa Claus too.

            Like

            • scherado says:

              Are you implying that someone hijacked your account and wrote what appears at ‘January 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm’?

              Do you remember what happened to “dick8johnson” when he tried that evasion?

              Like

              • phil fan says:

                Are you saying you can’t read? My mention of Hamilton was in response to Mr Rational’s mention of A Hamilton: Mr Rational says: January 12, 2016 at 4:45 pm

                I trust you can read so look it up, sir. Try to follow along and keep your bile.

                Hey that discussion was long and involved and started at the top of the thread SD posted:

                senator-ted-cruz-was-for-the-constitution-before-he-turned-against-it/

                Like

                • scherado says:

                  I read the post at that time-stamp ‘January 12, 2016 at 4:45 pm’. What relation does it have to the sentence of yours that is the subject of my original reply to you? Do you understand the question?

                  Like

              • phil fan says:

                Boy oh boy. 1) What I wrote @ 5:27pm is referring to the comment @ 4:45pm where Hamilton is mentioned.
                2) Sundance said in the original article: “Ted Cruz is a Naturalized Citizen, not “Natural Born”. That is the subject of this thread. Everything I said is congruent with that. Others not so much, those who want “natural born” to apply to cruz who was not born in the US in opposition to Sundance’s thesis and our Constitution.

                Like

                • scherado says:

                  1) What made you think that you clarified anything at ‘January 14, 2016 at 8:44 am’? Now I know that the answer to my question, “Do you understand the question?” was well-worth asking. I will restate the subject question I posed at ‘January 14, 2016 at 8:25 am’: What relation does [Mr Rational’s post at ‘January 12, 2016 at 4:45 pm’] have to [your sentence, “Hamilton as we know was not a NBC”, found at ‘January 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm’ and] that is the subject of my original reply to you?

                  Like

                • phil fan says:

                  Buh bye

                  Liked by 1 person

            • scherado says:

              [In response to “Buh bye”.]

              Hmmhm. The lesson should be plain and I will make it so, for the peanut gallery. I will personalize so as not to offend further. I must be sure that I understand the question prior to posting a reply. If I am wrong about anything, then it would be best that I admit it promptly. An example of such a thing can be found at ‘January 14, 2016 at 5:11 am’.

              Now, there is no statement, assertion or anything equivalent to “Hamilton…was not a NBC”, in Mr. Rational’s ‘January 12, 2016 at 4:45 pm’ post. Yes, he did make, “mention of A Hamilton”–your words. Based on this sentence of yours, in ‘January 14, 2016 at 7:48 am, “…that discussion was long and involved and started at the top of the thread SD posted: (partial url)”, your previous sentence, “Hamilton as we know was not a NBC”, appears to be a reference to something above (prior to) Mr. Rational’s ‘January 12, 2016 at 4:45 pm’ post.

              Here is what you could and should have wrote to me: “While I am not entirely sure what you meant with those words after ‘wreaks’, I sure am glad that I was paraphrasing and, possibly, mocking something I read above (prior to) my reply to Mr. Rational and that my statement, ‘Hamilton as we know was not a NBC’, was an oblique–and, possibly, sarcastic–reference to earlier comments within this sizable thread. I should have made it clear from the beginning that I fully acknowledge that A. Hamilton’s satisfaction–or lack of–the designation Natural Born Citizen has no bearing on the truth-value of anything he or anyone else wrote about the subject, then or now, and that I may have violated some logical fallacy listed somewhere, but can’t be sure.”

              Like

      • ladysforest says:

        ““Natural born citizen” was certainly NOT well defined or ****understood by the founders at the time.”***** Yeah. I agree. The founders were fricken idiots. Zero comprehension. Bozos.

        Liked by 2 people

        • phil fan says:

          Luckily we have the “rational one” to help set us straight on what NBC means since it is Soooo difficult to understand “2 citizen parents + born on American soil”. Yep that’s just not clear.

          Like

          • stella says:

            If two citizen parents is a requirement, then Trump is ineligible. His mother was born in Scotland.

            Like

            • Mr Rational says:

              Although it would be fun, his mom was naturalized in 1942. The Donald was born in 1946.
              Trump’s father was born in the US to two German immigrants.

              Like

            • phil fan says:

              Question is “Was she a (naturalized) US citizen before Donald was born? Answer is “Yes, naturalized US citizen”. Therefore Donald Trump was born in US of two US citizens.

              Like

              • phil fan says:

                No one is suing Trump as they are Rubio and Cruz in 3-4 states for not being a natural born citizen. He clearly is by the original meaning of natural born citizen = person born on US soil of 2 citizens of the US.

                Like

        • Mr Rational says:

          I will not be responding to you in the future.
          You and I have no framework for basis of discussion or understanding.

          Like

        • stella says:

          Mr. Rational is correct, and both you and phil fan have no idea what you are talking about.

          Like

  42. Mark says:

    Wow! There will be a whole bunch of babies born to American servicemen and their American wives abroad (here, Germany comes to mind circa late sixties early seventies) that will have the cold realization wash over them as they read this that they are not natural born citizens. Many, I can imagine, would not have gone through naturalization process having been led to believe they were citizens by birth. Uh oh!

    Sorta sad soldiers’ kids, soldiers who put their lives on the line for this country’s citizens are not citizens themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Doc says:

      Actually, you’re wrong. They would be having the babies on an American Military installation which is considered US territory. And yes, the ones who don’t know they have to file with the fed govt for birth abroad.

      But that’s not what we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with 2 adults who moved to Canada and became Canadian and lived there for 8 years. This wasn’t daddy in the military serving the country. It was parents saying they wanted to be Canadian instead of American. Now, either they submitted the correct paperwork for Ted to collect his citizenship or they didn’t. And I agree, there is a chance he may not even be a citizen, much less NBC.

      Like

    • phil fan says:

      If they have been naturalized they most certainly ARE US citizens. As am I having been born overseas of 2 US citizens with my parents filling out the required paperwork at the local US embassy = the Report of Child Born Abroad by US Citizens . This is called the naturalization process and results in them and me being US CITIZENS. But not NBCs.

      Capice?

      Liked by 1 person

  43. telerider says:

    Well done Trapper, you nailed it.

    Like

  44. Mick says:

    Very disappointed in Levin at this point. I get that he and Conservative Review are backing Cruz to the hilt, but I expected a bit more from him on the NBC front. Any time that I have heard him since this has cropped up, he is ranting and raving about how people need to stop talking about it. If any one has heard him make a legal- and logic-based case for Cruz’s NBC, I would appreciate a link to it.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Regina says:

    How much fun would it be to have this end up with Levin and Cruz actually arguing it before SCOTUS? hehehe

    Like

  46. Rebel Mope says:

    Let’s cut to the chase. The GOPe are going to insist on one of their guys as VP, like they did to Reagan. (GHW Bush) I submit picking Cruz for that position would be the smart play. Let the Dems sue. It’s the only way this is ever going to be sorted out once and for all. Meanwhile, as VP (read: Attack Dog for the President) Cruz would be President of the Senate. He could abandon that perfunctory function in favor of a more hands-on approach- steering legislation for the president. Undercutting McConnell and relegating him to the ash heap of history where he belongs. The Dems and the GOPe would be so mad they both would sue on his eligibility issue, thus we would get a definitive answer. Then he will get bounced and Trump would still be able to name whomever he wanted- with the advise and consent of the Senate. Win-win-win.

    Like

    • pyromancer76 says:

      Cruz has sealed his records. Cruz is out of consideration for anything. Wait until he opens access, then we can talk about any place he might serve in a new administration. Right now he is not trustworthy, period.

      Liked by 3 people

  47. justafly says:

    The same ineligibility problem is also dogging Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindle and Nikki Haley. The question of whether a so-called anchor baby is a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen depends on how the 14th Amendment is (mis)interpreted.

    Any other use of the adjective ‘natural’ denotes ‘by Nature or by Nature’s God’, i.e. natural rights. If one is a natural born citizen there is no doubt of that citizen’s allegiance by jus soli nor by jus sanguinis.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s