Even though the evil Hairball was the first to bring this up, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. More and more legal scholars are agreeing that Ted “Uranus (no matter how you spell it) Inspector” Cruz is not eligible to be President, because he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.
A growing number of constitutional law scholars are arguing that Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada makes him ineligible to become president. Their argument could prove a thorn in the side of the senator, who is a zealous originalist on most constitutional questions—with what seems like a notable exception.
The issue has moved to the center of the presidential campaign, with Cruz’s rise in the polls and Donald Trump claiming that Cruz needs to prove he’s eligible to run by getting a declaratory judgment in federal court.
There is some ambiguity in the question of eligibility. The Constitution sets down three requirements to assume the nation’s highest office: one must be at least 35 years old, have been a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years (though whether those years must be consecutive or can be cumulative is a question up for debate) and must be a "natural-born citizen" of the United States. But the founders did not explicitly define "natural-born citizen," leaving room for doubt and debate.
While Cruz has told reporters his eligibility to become president is "settled law" because his mother was an American citizen when he was born and never renounced her American citizenship while she was a Canadian resident. Many constitutional theorists agree with Cruz that it’s not really up for debate.
But it’s hardly unanimous. An increasing number of high-profile constitutional law professors, including one of Cruz’s own professors from Harvard Law School, have in recent days argued publicly that Cruz’s birth disqualifies him.
Inserted from <Raw Story>
I don’t see how we can apply “natural-born” to an individual, who was hatched. Cruz should never have been allowed into this country and stopped at the border as a dangerous GMO. In tact, the time is now tie send him Cruz’in home to Canada.
24 Responses to “Cruz’in Home to Canada”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
His mother having been on the voting rolls in Canda is one element creating doubt…and reports indicate that, unlike the question of McCain's birth in Panama, at least 49 GOP Senators are unwilling to support a resolution supporting the view that the circumstances of his birth make him a natural citizen of the US.
"Although the U.S. government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy, it recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens." Not thinking of Ted now, thinking of his mother.
"A person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not, without more, mean that he renounces the other." from Kawakita v US 1952
I think it is an issue because of contradicting something he once said/claimed.
He went birther on Obama.
The Homeland Security website states:
To become a citizen at birth, you must:
•Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
•had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements
Title 8 USC § 1409 currently provides that:
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[14] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.[15]
"Physically present" can include time spend out of the country by a US government employee serving in a government post there.
For those born prior to 1986, instead of five and two years respectivelt, the requirements were ten and five years respectively.
However, "According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. The text of the Constitution does not define what is meant by natural born: in particular it does not specify whether there is any distinction to be made between persons whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis (parentage) and those whose citizenship is based on jus soli (birthplace). As a result, controversies have arisen over the eligibility of a number of candidates for the office."
Much more detail here.
Of course none of the Founding Fathers was a "natural born citizen" of a United States that wasn't even a gleam in John Adams' eye when they were born.
While I cannot stand any of them, it seems to me that since the criterion for birthright citizenship os OR anot AND, Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz (subject to verification of his mother's residency) all meet the criteria for girthright citizenship. It also seems to me that claiming that someone who has "birthright citizenship" is NOT a "natural born citizen" is disingenuous.
However, 49 of 54 REPUBLICAN Senators take the position that Cruz is on his own to prove his eligibility, they won't be lifting a finger to help.
Incidentally, not that anyone is asking this right now, but as a former Marine I always understood that a US military base anywhere in the world IS US soil for the purpose of jurisdiction – and birth.
It is.
Great info JD. Thanks!
Talk about total Cognitive Dissonance of Iowa Rethuglicans in Iowa WRT the “Manitoban Candidate” – just TRY to wrap your brain around these Poll numbers:
And this:
Then try to square that circle with this stupidity:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/01/trumpcruz-close-in-iowa-birther-issue-could-hurt-cruz-sanders-gaining-on-clinton.html
Sad, how incredibly ignorant these Republicans can be, and still breathe.
They wholeheartedly validate "Forrest Gump":
These are some of the same Republicans who elected Joni PigNuts Ernst. Why would you expect anything different?
The “Manitoban Candidate”? Where did that come from? Cruz was born in Alberta, the province of shitkickers, and 2 provinces west of Manitoba.
And speaking of shitkickers, I'll put my daddy's on and kick him back over to the US side of the border. No Cruz'in to Canada!
Then send him to Alberta!
I could be wrong, but I suspect "the Manitoban candidate" is a wordplay on "The Manchurian Candidate." Alberta just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Speaking about poll numbers . . .
"Beyond the birther issue there is plenty of good news for Cruz in this poll though. His 69/18 favorability rating makes him by far and away the most popular candidate in the state. In fact the only others over 60% are the relative nonfactors Mike Huckabee at 61/22 and Ben Carson at 60/25. "
Seems there a lot of right wing evangelicals in Iowa. Seems it isn't just the corn that is GMO, so is the Christianity.
Good one!
Somehow, he'll think of something, whatever it takes. Of course, he'll tap dance around this issue.
Yes, Joanne, I knew that in the military also, that any US military base anywhere in the world IS US soil for the purpose of jurisdiction – and birth. Good point, and a good FYI.
I'm sure you know that where I was going with that is – John McCain was NOT born in Panama. He was born on US soil, on a Naval Air Station, which happened to be surrounded by Panama. None of these other idiots can make that claim.
Am I off base for wondering why so many of the GOP candidates are even having to answer questions about this? Can't the GOP come up with candidates who were in fact born to citizen parents in the US? (Like Obama, whose roots through his mother go back to the Revolutionary War?) I there were Democratic candidates having this issue, the Republicans would say that the whole Democratic Party is un-American. You know they would.
So, the clown car splits off more buffoonery!
Man, one way to get rid of him, gone in a heartbeat.
I am not a constitutional scholar and don't profess to know a lot about it, but Trump was perfectly all right with Cruz being a candidate until he got ahead in the polls. I don't want either of them in office. I think too much emphasis is given to Iowa any way. Still can't get on Care 2 to make a comment.
Thanks all. Hugs!! Between PT and OT.
All I can say is that things look very differently when there's an ocean or two between these Republicans and an observer. Differently meaning: incedibly stupid and meaningless.