Cruz NOT POTUS Eligible

I’m sorry.

I wish it weren’t so.

I believe Ted Cruz to be a singularly gifted student of the Constitution and an exceptionally decent man, and if he runs, I’ll give him money.  Probably 3 or 4 times as much as I gave to various not-Obama candidates/causes in 2012, and even 2010/2014.  I love the guy. A LOT.

But if ever there were someone not eligible to be POTUS (President of the United States) it’s a man born in the Queen’s dominions with divided loyalty!  DEAR GOD HAS NO-ONE READ THE FRAMERS’ WRITINGS ON THIS?  HOW CAN ANYONE MAKE A SERIOUS ARGUMENT A SUBJECT OF THE QUEEN IS ELIGIBLE?????

I don’t CARE that he renounced his Canadian citizenship.  The Constitution’s “born” requirement doesn’t offer any sort of codicil about your status as an ADULT citizen.  It ONLY TALKS ABOUT YOUR STATUS AT BIRTH. AT BIRTH.

Now, pause for just a second and recognize that this is where conversations on this subject crash on the rocks:  the difference between “citizen” and “natural-born citizen.”  THERE’S NO DOUBT CRUZ WAS BORN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN but HE’S NOT – I REPEAT NOT – A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN by ANY METRIC MEASURABLE BY ORIGINAL INTENT.

The Framers wrote VOLUMINOUSLY about their VISCERAL concern with “divided loyalties” – that ACTUAL PHRASE – “divided loyalties” – and “usurpation”… I mean… My God… It could NOT BE ANY CLEARER.

This is why we have DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS for CITIZENSHIP, i.e., “naturalized,” “dual,” etc… Just because you are a citizen, does not mean you meet the HIGH CONSTITUTIONAL TEST FOR THE PRESIDENCY which SHOULD have a higher standard!  The law is FULL of “threshold” tests and “standards” etc. and if EVER there was one, THIS IS IT.  Other than Minor v. Happersett, this matter has not been before SCOTUS (The Supreme Court of the United States) but I GUARANTEE YOU the progs will challenge it to their steps if Cruz runs and a lot of people like me will be destroyed if it stops a Cruz-Missile into the Oval just before a possible win… but I’m telling you… everything in me says Scalia would agree with me, the Court’s most conservative Justice, who, I’m sure, would, like me, love to see a President Cruz, but would, because he’s a conservative jurist, would have to rule against a Cruz presidency.

Here’s a bipartisan Harvard Law Review article, via Fox, telling me I’m all washed-up:

Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president


Published March 14, 2015

While questions about Canadian-born Sen. Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president haven’t drawn much attention, two former Justice Department lawyers have weighed in with a bipartisan verdict: Cruz, they say, is eligible to run for the White House.

Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clemente, solicitor general in President George W. Bush’s administration, got out in front of the issue in a Harvard Law Review article.

“There is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” they wrote.

Anti-Cruz “birthers” had questioned the Texas Republican senator’s eligibility to be president, challenging his citizenship status because he was born in Canada.  Two years ago, Cruz released his birth certificate showing his mother was a U.S. citizen born in Delaware, presumably satisfying the requirements for presidential eligibility as a “natural born citizen.”

The law review article, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen”, asserts that the interpretation of the term was settled in Cruz’s favor as early as the 1700’s. The lawyers wrote that the Supreme Court has long used British common law and enactments of the First Congress for guidance on defining a “natural born citizen.”

“Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent,” they wrote. They concluded someone like Cruz had “no need to go through naturalization proceedings,” making him eligible. Cruz is still weighing a presidential run.

Last month, Cruz addressed the citizenship issue during a question-and-answer session with moderator Sean Hannity, of Fox News, at the Conservative Political Action Conference.  “I was born in Calgary. My mother was an American citizen by birth,” Cruz said.  “Under federal law, that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.”

Rush Goes Birther!

Well, Rush Limbaugh’s guest host, Mark Steyn goes birther in a perfectly sensible way which will no doubt make Obots’ collective heads… REJOICE!  And – it kills me to say this – I happened to agree:  Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President.  He was born in Canada of a British subject (his father, who emigrated there from Cuba).  Now, his mother is American, but “natural-born citizen,” as opposed to merely “citizen,” is the higher standard required for the presidency.

The Founders intended it very purposefully.  Why? Loyalty.  They did not want a whisper of divided loyalties.  They were a little sensitive about that, quite understandably.  You know, the whole Revolution thing.  Long train of abuses.  Usurpations.  Those things.  They were a little fussy about protecting that which they staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

So as much as I love Ted Cruz, and can brag that he follows me on Twitter (I know. I have no life.) the guy just isn’t eligible.  Ted Cruz Follow Me TwitterHe’s a citizen, yes. But he’s not a natural-born citizen.  So he can’t be President.  I know this is extremely controversial, and quite apart from Minor v Happersett, not yet addressed by SCOTUS, but gang, Cruz can’t be POTUS.


Here’s the 4+ minutes of audio.


Birther Logic Delineated by an Attorney

This is as good & clear an explanation of Minor vs. Happersett, and the depth and breadth of the generalized doubt about Obama’s provenance as I have ever seen.  Highly recommended and a big “atta-boy” once again to The American Thinker who is singularly brilliant on a near daily basis.

Click. Go. Read.  All the way to the end.  You’ll be wickedly smaht-er. 😉

February 9, 2012

The Obama Ballot Challenges: A Crisis of Confidence

By Monte Kuligowski

Born Twice?

The birthers may get a second bite at the apple… and the last laugh depending upon who the V.P. pick is.

Reading this article on Marco Rubio, it occurs to me that the Democrats, who started the whole birther thing though nobody ever remembers it that way (the Clintons lit that match during the primary), may challenge whoever the pick is, because I’d bet my last dollar it will be a politically correct minority in order to kneecap Obama’s certain playing of the race card.  That’s not to say Bam won’t use it anyway, but an “ethnic”  V.P. will add a helpful strain of incredulity to every card in his deck.

The really hard core birthers assert that because Obama’s dad was a British citizen at the time of birth, and his mother was not yet the age of majority, his citizenship is British.  They keep pointing to this SCOTUS precedent of Minor v Happersett that supposedly settled it, and I can see their point, but I can’t get past the whole “anchor baby” problem inherent in it.  In order to believe that their argument is sound, you would then have to believe that every baby born on American soil not of two parents who are citizens, is not a “natural born citizen” and that’s millions of precedents literally walking around…  I just don’t see how you can get past that.  There’s paper law, then there’s law with “lungs” – millions of them, living and breathing, with rights.  How do you strip them of them?

I just don’t know how it would all work, but I’m not a lawyer, I have the added complication of having Asperger’s which makes me very literal, and given to huge misses.  I’ve been known to miss BIG on things that are obvious to others, so I’ve long ago stopped be so damned certain about everything.