If Ted Cruz decides to run for the Presidency and he appears to be the strongest conservative running, I will support him to the hilt. He's one of the few conservatives in the Senate who actually has the balls to stand up for conservatism and against Obama and the GOP-e RINOs. This is a battle for the survival of America as a free nation. If we allow the democrats and the GOP-e statists to select our next opposition candidate for us, ie, Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, this nation is kaput.
We stand united or we fall. We cannot afford to destroy our best candidates or to split our conservative vote to the point that the likes of Christy or Bush gets the nod and someone like Hillary waltzes into the White House.
Supporting the "electable" Dole, McCain and Romney gave us Clinton and Obama. Supporting the crazy conservative gave us President Reagan.
Bump that again.
Personally, Øbongo and the dhimmis set the bar (about ten feet underground) and we would be cheating ourselves not to exploit that to elect a true conservative.
I don’t care if he’s from Mars - if he runs I’m supporting him!
Whether you’re right or wrong about his eligibility - and I’m sure that will continue to be hotly debated in many quarters - personally I still can’t support him because of his support for immoral, unconstitutional “and then you can kill the baby” “fetal pain” legislation.
If he really does run, because of where I live, I will no doubt have multiple in-person, eyeball-to-eyeball opportunities to attempt to dissuade Senator Cruz from this compromised position. Which I will take advantage of.
There’s a lot to like about the man, no doubt about it. I think he’s a decent, sincere person. But this matter is so fundamentally crucial as to be non-negotiable for me.
I’d also love to talk him out of his support for E-Verify. IMO, the last thing we need is another federal database, and a bureaucracy from which American citizens have to get permission to work and earn their daily bread.
Thanks for that. Too many people trying to claim that your family had to have come over on the Mayflower to qualify.
Can't wait for the first LaRaza “natural born” anchor baby prez born of two America hating illegals.
Bravo, I’m happy to see this posting!
Glad you started this thread, and I was also glad to hear Mark Levin discuss the Cato piece on his show last evening.
bttt
Winston Spencer Churchill was born in Blenheim, England. His father was Lord Randolph Churchill. His mother was the former Jenny Jerome of Brooklyn, New York. Winston Churchill was never a citizen of the United States, or indeed a natural born citizen.
Of course he wasn't. For in 1963 by proclamation, he was declared an honorary citizen of the United States. This by President Kennedy.
An American mother then, did not give citizenship to her son Winston Churchill. Yer Framers of the Constitution must be turning in their graves.
Jim, Compromising the Constitution makes it worthless as well as elevates the current criminal usurper. Please reconsider your view on this. Truth and the law are on our side.
Jim, I have been doing this stuff for over 25 years.
The whole question of who qualified as a Natural Born Citizen in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified can be answered by reference to the first immigration and Naturalization act passed by the First Congress and signed into law by George Washington, the Father of this great Country.
First of all it should be noted at the outset that the laws in effect at the time of Cruz’s birth clearly entitled him to citizenship at birth status.
With that in mind, it must also be noted that the first and only definition that statutorily indicated who was entitled to NBC status was in the naturalization act of 1790 (one of the first laws signed into law by Geroge Washington) and that statute clearly stated that the children of Citizens born overseas were entitled to NBC status.
So if we are looking for a contemporary interpretation of what the founders meant by that clause, then we have it in that statute.
Therefore anyone interested in the original intent of the founders in who is a NBC, one need not look any further than the act signed into law by George Washington.
Hence if Ted Cruz had been born under the same conditions in 1790, then George Washington would have considered him an NBC.
If the first law of Naturalization that George Washington signed into law would make Ted Cruz a NBC, then I am certainly not going to argue that it was the intention of the framers to exclude him.
There is not a single doubt in my mind that Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen in accordance with the definition as understood by none other than George Washington.
I understand that there are Freepers who harbor doubts on this issue. I can understand that because the issue is murkey and subject to a lot of esoteric arguments.
With that said, I think the following is an imperative:
If there is any reasonable doubt as to whether Ted Cruz would be a NBC then as pro life Christians and patriots, we owe it to both ourselves and our posterity to give Ted Cruz the benefit of that doubt.
Our posterity is counting on us to do all we can to preserve the blessings of Liberty for them. Dividing over this issue at a time like this will do nothing to accomplish that mission.
Jim:
Given the precedent set by Barry’s inauguration twice, I support Ted Cruz as a candidate for POTUS.
I note that CATO writer, Ilya Shapiro, goes out of his way to point out that if Barry was born outside the US then the same statute that makes Cruz a citizen at birth would prevent Barry from having been one.
Per Ilya Shapiro:
“So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there’s no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn’t have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn’t have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else.”
Shapiro, being a friend of Cruz, doubtless ran this by him before publishing it, so it seems to me that Shapiro and likely also Cruz by stating that if Barry wasn’t born in the US he was not a US citizen and therefore ineligible could qualify them both as being a particular kind of “birther”...(which is the kind that I happen to be).
I found it amusing that when Mark Levin was reading this column by Shapiro on his radio program and got to the above quoted paragraph with clear “birther” implications, he stopped after the question posed in the first sentence and then omitted the answer that explains how Cruz’s qualifying statute would disqualify Barry. Levin muttered “Oh Lord if I go down this road, all the kooks will be shooting at me.” so he skipped over it.
Go to the link below to hear Levin omitting this part of the article @4:54:
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-explains-that-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
I don’t know whether Sheriff Arpaio and Mike Zullo have been communicating with Ted Cruz and perhaps Ilya Shapiro, but Zullo claims they have found evidence in their confidential criminal investigation that points to Barry NOT being born in Hawaii. Perhaps Shapiro is giving a little warning to Hillary’s opposition-research team and to Barry not to press too hard on Cruz’s eligibility?
“So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.”
I thought that, under the Constitution, Congress could establish who is a naturalized citizen, but that “natural born citizen” was a Constitutional determination. If a parent is a citizen at the time of the child’s birth, how can Congress limit “natural born citizens” to children whose parent(s) have lived here for x many years? It has power in regard to naturalized citizens, not in regard to natural born citizens. Isn’t requiring residency by a citizen parent for x years an additional requirement for the child to be a natural born citizen and, thus, beyond Congress’ power?
In any case, I think Cruz is a natural born citizen.
It’s self evident that Cruz is not an NBC. He’s Canadian. But we don’t want facts to upset the apple cart or anything.
I mean really. It’s so obvious. But people just want what they want and will ignore the truth. This is more twisting and rationalization.
And too bad the founding father’s required us to have constitutional scholars to interpret for us lowly, chattel. I mean I don’t make a decision of my own unless Mark Levin, Rush or the Cato institute tells me what to think. /s
I can’t get over someone saying they respect the Constitution but is willing to destroy if it benefits him personally, like becoming President. All of Cruz’s positive qualities just go down the drain at that point as it is revealed that his personal aspirations overrule his supposed love of the Constitution.
This is like Clinton and the whole oral sex thing. “It’s not sex” they screamed. I mean it only has the word “sex” in the title. Of course it’s sex. It’s self evident. It’s even named “sex.”
He’s Canadian. Self-evident. Sheesh.
I disagree with your decision, but this is your site, not mine nor ours, so your rules. I think what you’re trying to gain by this will be erased by what you’re losing by your decree. Time will tell, and I’ve been wrong before, but I’ll stand corrected if so. Will you?
I’ve promised myself not to weigh in on this topic, but thank you for a touch of rationality. The anti-Cruz case is, imo a losing one, to be made by Hillary supporters. Who have experience in these things. Post convention.
This guy spells it out pretty clearly. I really do not see what the discussion is about. Citizens are either natural citizens or they have been naturalized. Of course then you have the tweeners who come here illegally and suck off the teat of the 45% of us earning a living.
Amen to that!!
How about the words of US Senators?
In 2000 and in 2004 resolutions were advanced to “maximize voter choice by opening the presidency to naturalized citizens”. In 2004 multiple statements specifically pointed to the then Michigan Governor, Jennifer Granholm, who was born in Canada and lived there until the age of four, being ineligible due to the location of her birth - mention was not made of her parents nationality at the hearing.
But it wasn’t just the two proposed amendment resolutions, rather there were fifteen different attempts made since the seventies.
When you read through the resolutions there is much about “fairness”, and “it’s for the children”. Mention is even made of slavery, and get this - dreams. “The dreams of the kids”. Oh yes, all of the tenderest buttons are pushed, all of the finer emotions are appealed to.
Darrell Issa, Hatch, Conyers, and Barney Frank are all heavy hitters in the push to change the eligibility requirement. Frank (who backed several amendment attempts)even refers to the Constitutional requirement as “invidious discrimination”. The founders are mocked repeatedly, and much credit is given to the populace for being “too smart” to fall for a “slick mole” being slid past us and installed in the White House.
Rep. Rohrabacher, CA, who appeared with Frank in front of the Committee, filed a House Joint Resolution 104 at the same time in 2004 - and said it mirrored exactly SJR 15.
Both houses were going after this hard.
Rep. Rohrabacher said, “Let me just note that the reasons our Founding Fathers added a natural born citizen requirement to the Constitution’s qualification for being president, those reasons may have seemed like they were real back then (get that? MAY have seemed like they were real BACK THEN), but they are archaic, and technologically they have been dealt with in the meantime. The main rational seems to be that our Founding Fathers had was to protect future generations from undue foreign influence which would happen through the elections of a foreign-born leader to the Executive office.”
“This mind set prevailed among our Founding Fathers because, of course, they had just freed themselves from foreign domination. And that may have made a lot of sense BACK THEN.” emphasis mine
She goes on to say, “Today of course, the office of President and Vice President are the only offices where a person who is not born in the United States is disqualified from serving.” Also in reference to a list of names she presented of naturalized citizens, she says, “Who are now ineligible for President because they are not U.S. citizens OF birth.”emphasis mine
I believe with my whole heart that the threat of such a thing happening is greater now than it has ever been in history.
According to our representatives in 2004, “The immigrants and naturalized are more patriotic, and the natural Americans take their liberty and freedom for granted.”
Issa had this to say, “So, we could pass a law today allowing someone to be President that previously was in doubt. That would include obviously those born abroad of U.S. citizens” he goes on to mention McCain - .
Basically, the eligibility requirement is mocked for being outdated, un-American, and hints it was only inserted as a sop to those who were believing rumors that foreign monarchs were being approached to serve as President.
A witness at the hearing, Akhil Reed Amar, Prof. of Law and Poli. Sci., Yale had this to say, among other things, “Only the Pres. and Vice Presidency were reserved for birth-citizens”
In 2004, nine short years ago, it was acknowledged that birth in the U.S. was a requirement. Nothing has changed since. There have been no amendments to the eligibility requirements. It does mention that in this Joint Resolution. Mr. Amar, “Now would be the first time we have tweaked the Founders’ rules of Presidential eligibility”.
So, according to the “experts”, the 14th Amendment, nor any law passed since the Constitution was ratified has “tweaked” the requirement. And don’t you love how they make it seem like such and itty-bitty thing? Oh, just a little “tweak”.
“Under the English Act of Settlement, 1701 NO naturalized (English)subject could ever serve in the House of Commons, or Lords, or the Privy Counsel, or in a wide range of other offices. The U.S. Constitution repudiated this (English) tradition across the board, opening the House, the Senate, the Cabinet and the Federal judiciary to naturalized and native alike.” ~ Prof. Amar
So, we threw off English law in regards to our Senators, Reps. Judges, etc., but clung to it to define the qualification for our President and Vice President?
It is said that our natural born eligibility requirement came from English common law, and meant the exact same thing as “natural born subject”, simply put, mere birth on the soil.
While nobility frequently married other nobles born in the same country as they, this was not the case for Monarchs.
Monarchs were NOT excluded from being born in other countries - because royalty usually do marry royalty from afar. An English monarch isn’t going to marry an English monarch. They would marry a German one though, for example. ~ Ladysforest
Over and over in that 2004 resolution it is stated that only those born in the U.S. are eligible. I am not interpreting their words, I am not the internet sea lawyer of which you spoke.
How have things changed in nine years?