Tag Archives: Ted Cruz

Cruz NOT POTUS Eligible

by Annie | Leave a comment

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

By 

Published March 14, 2015

| FoxNews.com

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.”

Share the post "Cruz NOT POTUS Eligible"

Rush Goes Birther!

by Annie | Leave a comment

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.

Sorry.

Here’s the 4+ minutes of audio.

 

Share the post "Rush Goes Birther!"

“Natural” v. “Native” Born

by Annie | Leave a comment

The hullabaloo over Ted Cruz’s citizenship is interesting on a number of levels but the one that interests me the most is the one that is discussed the least:  “natural” versus “native” born.  I poo-pooed the matter of parental citizenship prior to this, but upon a rethink & more reading, I realize I was wrong;  not only as it relates to Cruz but to Obama, in combination with, the more obvious matter of WHERE one is born. They BOTH matter.

Everyone agrees that if you are born on American soil, even if it is “declared” American soil, like an embassy or military base (i.e. John McCain), no matter what nationality either/both parents are,  you are a citizen.  You are at the very least a “native” born citizen but that is no guarantee that you are a “natural” born citizen, which is what the Constitution requires of our President.  This is a CRITICAL distinction and just blown past in most of the media discussion about this issue.

For instance, John McCain, even though he was born outside the U.S. (I forget where, but it was a military base, and officially American soil – Panama Canal?) was born of two American citizen parents on American soil; therefore John McCain qualifies as a “natural” born citizen eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States.

McCain’s provenance comports with what we know from the Federalist papers and one SCOTUS decision that “natural” born citizen means that you are born not only on American soil but, and this is important, you must also have American parents – two of them, on American soil, at the time of your birth, i.e., no duality of citizenship.  This was the clear message of the founders who, at the time, were understandably concerned about divided loyalties (in their case to the Crown);  but more broadly, and for posterity, to any entity other than The United States of America.

Now, obviously, there had to be a “grandfathering” in of this for our Founding Fathers, as the Republic, as formed under the constitution drafted by their hand, didn’t exist before they drafted it!  But their intent was clear: NO DIVIDED LOYALTIES. PERIOD.

Thus we have distinctions we commonly recognize:  “naturalized” citizen, “natural-born” citizen, and “native-born” citizen.  They are different.  They are so-called for a reason:  they each of have profound differences for a REASON, thus the different names.

As much as I love Ted Cruz, I believe a very serious argument could be made that he is NOT eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.  I LOVE the guy, but I wonder – very seriously wonder about his eligibility.  I’m not even sure which of the “n’s” he is, given the fact that his father was Cuban, and he was born in Canada of an American mother.  At our founding, citizenship was conferred by the father, so there is a possibility that, as it has yet to be clearly adjudicated by SCOTUS, that he could have TRIPLE citizenship which is two more than a “natural” born President is allowed.

I just don’t see how he could be eligible, but I’m willing to be convinced.  He’s born in Canada, a part of the United Kingdom for crying out loud; we blew that clambake, remember?  How can we have a President born of the Crown of all things?

It seems to me “natural” born means two American parents on American soil, but I’ll leave it to people way, waaaay smarter than me to argue otherwise.

BTW:  My previous writings on Mr. Obama’s difficulties with provenance can be found here for starters, but if you click on “birth certificate” in the tags, there are about a dozen total.  (For the record: I do not believe he was born in Kenya or any place other than the United States of America.  I do believe he was born in Hawaii but that doesn’t mean there aren’t significant problems with his documents.)  American Thinker (a website I heartily recommend and I read every day) has an excellent article on “natural” vs. “native” born including a discussion of the one relevant SCOTUS case, Minor v Happersett.

Share the post "“Natural” v. “Native” Born"