Posted on 01/11/2016 8:19:23 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School, writes in the Los Angeles Times that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97% would not be considered a "natural born citizen" under an originalist view of the Constitution.
From the LA Times:
Under either a textualist or a "living Constitution" theory, Cruz is a "natural born Citizen," eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn't. It's the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.
To an originalist, a "natural born Citizen" is a person who is a citizen of the United States under "natural" principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli â the law of soil â was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis -- the law of blood -- held that a child's citizenship flowed from the parents' allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Just what do you imagine is going to happen if Cruz is the nominee?
If the DNC was to litigate to try to get him removed, courts would give the matter a quick hearing, dismiss the case, and that’s it.
No one who would vote for Cruz in the General would fail to vote for him if the Dems claimed he was not a NBC.
It’s all a non-issue, just like McCain’s POB was. This is now nothing more than media using Trumps latest comment to fill time and space in their newscasts and papers.
‘If the DNC was to litigate to try to get him removed, courts would give the matter a quick hearing, dismiss the case, and thatâs it.’
Of course. Because No Way do a plurality of judges slant left. Conservatives win in court just as often as liberals! Just look at how fast Roberts swatted the unConstitutional elements of Obamacare away. No bias there! On at least two bases Obamacare is clearly, PLAINLY unConstitutional, and naturally that’s what the Court decided.
How about homosexual marriage? Bet you LOVE the way the fair, unbiased Court handled that one! Anybody who doesn’t think the Framers wanted homosexual marriage forced on America from the top down doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Ditto abortion. Why, even if the courts DO slant left, they always get it right.
Or maybe, just MAYBE judges have erred a wee bit to the left in the past...but no worries! With Cruz, they’ll get it right! So says you, so it MUST be true.
::snigger::
Sorry, it’s a non-issue. It’s a matter that was decided by the courts long ago.
Since you have reduced this to personal innuendo, this is my last comment on this non-issue.
Getting a little touchy, aren’t you? But then, Cruz supporters are known for their thin skin.
If Cruz were to end up the nominee, I’d bookmark this so I could say, ‘Told you so.’ Since the odds of him prevailing in the primary are too remote to calculate, I’ll just wish you happiness in your grand delusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.