CNN: Is Ted Cruz Eligible To Run For President?

Real Clear Politics ^ | August 14, 2013 | RCP

[Cheerio]

CNN's Athena Jones investigates if Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is eligible to run for president. CNN says the "natural-born citizen" question is dogging Cruz. For the record, CNN said every constitutional law expert they interviewed for said Cruz is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be president.

[NOVACPA]

He should, but he is not eligible.

He’ll continue to do great work in the Senate.

Is that you, Squeeky?

[xzins]

If you read through the “Cruz” threads from this past week, you’ll not be able to escape the fact that he is eligible. I would go over it all for you again, but I’m tired of writing about it. I’m certain, though.

The no-Cruz forces simply don’t have the law on their side...nor the history for that matter.

Read up on it prayerfully, look through those threads, and I’m sure you’ll see what the law really is.

[RipSawyer]

They probably figure the bloom is off Rubio’s rose and he is no longer a threat to them. Cruz still has an aura of being a real conservative who might have a chance.

[RipSawyer]

I think you are right but then the supreme court ruling on the constitutionality of “Obamacare” was totally ludicrous and blatantly wrong also. Reality is about the last thing the nation recognizes these days. As I have said for years now those who spout absurdity that would have probably gained them a free room in a state mental hospital sixty years ago are now running the country while those who say what used to be common sense as obvious as the sunrise are ridiculed. I would rather be dirt poor and barely getting by in the old America than to be as rich as Gates or Buffett in the current lunatic asylum without a roof.

[Lakeshark]

I'm pinging a good man to the thread where you and P Marlowe educated posters on the presidential eligibility question. If more people used their common sense and did some research instead of accepting the birthers as the settled constitutional experts we'd be far better off. Windy, kindly read the posts of these two fine conservatives on the thread I link, they genuinely nail the issue with both common sense and research: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3054477/posts

[RipSawyer]

“Maybe we should “run” Ted for a while and then Pull a Bait and Switch and run Mike Lee instead just to screw with the Media....”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

If the election system is half as corrpt as it appears to be it scarcely matters who is nominated. Only Democrats or Rinos who will perform as Democrats in office will be allowed to win. Hell’s bells, my state has prancing Linda Graham, John McCain’s puppet, pretending to be a conservative senator.

[Windflier]

Windy, kindly read the posts of these two fine conservatives on the thread I link, they genuinely nail the issue with both common sense and research

I'll go you one better, Lake. Take five minutes out of your day and read this. It was penned by a Freeper, and is one of the best essays you'll ever read on the NBC subject:

The Constitutional Meaning Of "Natural Born Citizen"

[Windflier]

Windy, kindly read the posts of these two fine conservatives on the thread I link, they genuinely nail the issue with both common sense and research

I'll go you one better, Lake. Take five minutes out of your day and read this. It was penned by a Freeper, and is one of the best essays you'll ever read on the NBC subject:

The Constitutional Meaning Of "Natural Born Citizen"

[Windflier]

Windy, kindly read the posts of these two fine conservatives on the thread I link, they genuinely nail the issue with both common sense and research

I'll go you one better, Lake. Take five minutes out of your day and read this. It was penned by a Freeper, and is one of the best essays you'll ever read on the NBC subject:

The Constitutional Meaning Of "Natural Born Citizen"

[Windflier]

Sorry about the triple post. I have no idea what happened there.

[deport]

He should, but he is not eligible.

************

That will have to be decided by those nine wearing the black robes at the US
Supreme Court or an amendment
to the US Constitution. Until then it is just fodder for conversation amongst the many.

Some others who have ran and have had questions about this issue include:

Chester A. Arthur
Christopher Schürmann
Charles Evans Hughes
Barry Goldwater
George Romney
Lowell Weicker
Róger Calero
John McCain
Barack Obama

[WhiskeyX]

Yes, and this lunatic asylum is the fault and responsibility of the U.S. Citizens who condone, tolerate, and even promote such misconduct. The Supreme court of the U.S. has often proven to be in gross error and blatantly unconstitutional. The doctrine of standing being one of their more notorious accomplishments. All of which highlights how it is the responsibility of the People of the United States to hold the U.S. governments responsible for their misconduct. The enforcement of the Constitution’s natural born citizen eligibility clause is one such test of the politicians and the People who vote for them.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Did Ted Cruz ever have to go through a citizenship test? If the answer is NO, then he is “Natural Born”.

That's not necessarily correct. According to the Foreign Affairs manual published by the U.S. Department of State, statutory citizenship may or may not be equivalent to natural-born citizenship under the U.S. Constitution.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
(...)
d. (snip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Please see my post at #113.

The courts simply have not ruled on the matter. Being a “citizen at birth” or a “natural-born citizen” by statute may or may not make one eligible to the presidency under the U.S. Constitution. Such persons are absolutely citizens and do not require naturalization, but according to the State Department, there is no definitive answer to the question of their constitutional eligibility.

Unless and until the courts do rule, all discussion on the matter is pure speculation and all citations of the law on immigration and naturalization are interpretations and educated guesses.

[xzins]

The Founders ruled on it in 1790 when they said that children born to US citizens overseas were "natural born"

George Washington signed it; President Washington presided over the constitutional convention that wrote our constitution that was ratified in 1787, just 3 years before this law was passed.

So, the usage of "natural born citizen" extended to those born to US citizens overseas according to those who wrote the Constitution.

There really isn't any argument after this.

[Windflier]

The Founders ruled on it in 1790 when they said that children born to US citizens overseas were "natural born"

Citation?

[xzins]

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

[Windflier]

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens..."

Ooops....you forgot one little detail:

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

Nice try. No cigar.

[Windflier]

George Washington signed it; President Washington presided over the constitutional convention that wrote our constitution that was ratified in 1787, just 3 years before this law was passed.

So, the usage of "natural born citizen" extended to those born to US citizens overseas according to those who wrote the Constitution.

There really isn't any argument after this.

Oh, but I'm afraid there is, and it happened just five years after George Washington put his signature to that document:

"... the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States...

Notice the wording change from 'Natural Born Citizens'?

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795)

[VideoDoctor]

"I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' CNN"

CRUZ is ELIGIBLE!