Thread: Opinion: Sen. Cruz might face birther problem, isn’t that ironic?

I didn't ask you. The question was addressed to "MW".

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

I didn't ask you. The question was addressed to "MW".

This is a forum. If you post it, anyone can answer any question you ask or comment on any post you make. If you want an off the forum private communication with MW, that's why we have PM available here.

I'll gladly answer any question anyone has about the FairTax and respond to any comment I think worthy of my time to do so.

Have a nice day!

1/10/16

Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President?

ELECTION 2016

Cruz and Rubio: Neither is eligible

Exclusive: Larry Klayman applies definition of natural born citizen Obama skirted

Published: 1/8/16 Larry Klayman About | Email | Archive Larry Klayman is a former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. His latest book is "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment."



Having established that President Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim under Shariah law thanks to his Muslim father and by virtue of his actions, and thus as the winner of the “Muslim of the Year” award, it now appears that our ineligible “leader” can be more precisely defined as a Shiite.
This week, Obama again failed to back up and defend our oil-rich ally Saudi Arabia, which is a Sunni Arab nation, when the terrorist Islamic Iranian government sponsored the setting afire of the Kingdom’s embassy in Tehran. This comes on the heels of nuclear missile tests and other acts of provocation by Obama’s mullah brethren in Iran. Clearly, the “Muslim of the Year” has shown his true colors; he is not only Muslim, but in his heart a Shiite. No wonder he so eagerly bowed down to the ayatollahs in Tehran and deceitfully and illegally rammed through a so-called treaty paving the way for these Islamic maniacs to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the United States, Western Europe and of course Israel. The Shiite lover’s dream of an Islamic caliphate is, today, on the brink of reality.


In a predictable twist of fate, however, the more novel story this week is the issue of who is a “natural born citizen” eligible under our Constitution to run for, be elected and serve as president of the United States. First raised with regard to the Muslim of the Year in 2008, “eligibility” has reared its head yet again. Long since buried when this requirement was applied to our president – indeed courts have refused to address the issue in several cases I and others filed – not surprisingly it has now taken on public and legal interest now that two white guys, Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, both born to only one citizen parent at the time of birth and in the case of Cruz also born in Canada and until recently holding dual citizenship, are in the spotlight of a presidential primary election. As any reader to this column and WND knows, “natural born citizen” is defined thanks to the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations as a person born in the United States or its territories to two citizen parents. The framers and thus the Supreme Court look to this codified treatise to define crucial terms in the Constitution.
Cruz is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban-Canadian father, and until last year was a dual Canadian-American citizen. In 2014 he conveniently renounced his Canadian citizenship in the nick of time to run for the presidency. Rubio, on the other hand, was born in the states, but his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth. Thus, these Cuban-American senators are technically ineligible to be president.
While I really like Cruz and see him as a true patriot – I feel otherwise with regard to Rubio who is in my view a two-faced phony – it is indeed ironic that they would now undergo intense scrutiny by Democrats and some Republicans alike such as Sen. John McCain, who hates Cruz, while our black Muslim president effectively escaped all scrutiny, despite having likely been born in Kenya to only one American parent. We now have confirmation that indeed the concept of affirmative action is embedded in our living Constitution.
Donald Trump is of course the current political benefactor of this debate, as Hillary Clinton initially was in 2008 when she ran in the Democratic primary for president against Obama. But the bigger consideration is the reason the framers inserted the “natural born citizen” requirement into the Constitution. Except for the offices of president and vice president, all other references in the Constitution refer only to “citizen.” Thus, there has to be a difference in legal interpretation.
The reason is that our framers, most of whom were grandfathered out of the “natural born citizenship” requirement given their recent immigration from England, realized that the newly formed nation would encompass many persons with dual loyalties, those whose families owned land and wealth and had close relatives in the British kingdom. They thus wanted our president and vice president to be one step removed from foreign influences.
Until the election and king-like rule of the Shiite Muslim of the Year, the issue of natural born citizen was merely theoretical. But with the favoring of Islam and foreign interests at every turn of his presidency, to the detriment of the United States, we now can see why the framers inserted this into the Constitution.
For Sens. Cruz and Rubio, it is too bad they were not also born to black mothers or fathers. If they had been so fortunate, like Shiite Obama, they may have escaped scrutiny. But for these Cuban-American pale faces, their chances to win the Republican nomination for president is likely doomed. By my estimate, there is roughly a third of the Republican electorate which knows and cares enough about the Constitution to cause them to vote for other GOP presidential candidates. And, this makes The Donald the likely winner at this point of the primary season.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/cruz-and-...r-is-eligible/

Constitutional Scholars Explain Why Ted Cruz Is Eligible to Be President

• By RYAN STRUYK

Jan 6, 2016, 5:21 PM ET

Donald Trump says questions about whether Ted Cruz is eligible to be President of the United States could become a “big problem” for the Canadian-born Republican candidate. But among legal scholars, there’s a consensus: He’s eligible to occupy the Oval Office.

The Texas senator, who was born in Calgary, Canada, to an American mother, has been widely viewed as meeting the “natural born citizen” requirement of the United States Constitution. And most legal experts agree -- including former Solicitors General Neal Katyal and Paul Clement.

“An individual born to a U.S. citizen parent -- whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone -- is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President,” the bipartisan duo wrote in a Harvard Law Review article in March 2015. Trump first raised this question of President Obama in 2008, saying that the future president, who was born in Hawaii, may not be eligible.

Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School, told ABC News that Trump's alternative definition would mean that only citizens born in the United States would be eligible.

“My own view as a constitutional scholar is that the better view -- the one most consistent with the entire Constitution -- is the broader definition, according to which Cruz would be eligible,” he said, including anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth and doesn’t need to be naturalized.

Burt Neuborne, a professor at New York University Law School, agreed: “It seems to me that his citizenship is just as good as Donald Trump’s citizenship.”

Facing questions about his nationality before he announced his candidacy for president, Cruz took the unusual step in June 2014 of formally renouncing his Canadian citizenship. Cruz said today on the campaign trail that the question is “settled law.” But most scholars agree that the question has not yet been officially resolved.

“I think there’s a scholarly consensus, but it’s not a done deal,” said Sarah Helene Duggin, a professor at the Catholic University of America, adding that experts aren't unanimous on the issue. “I don’t think it’s open and shut at all.”

Tribe, who also taught constitutional law to Cruz and Obama at Harvard, concurred. “I don’t agree that it’s ‘settled law,’” he told ABC News. “The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue one way or the other, as I believe Ted ought to know.”

Trump also says that the question could prompt a long, drawn-out battle in the courts that could spell problems for the Republican Party. But Neuborne disagrees.

“You’re putting the presidency in play in some way in a world in which the American president is the anchor,” Neuborne said. “When that is threatened, the American judiciary moves immediately and fast.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/const...ry?id=36127821

After reading numerous articles on the subject over the last few days, I haven't found one instance where a constitutional scholar has said Ted Cruz was not eligible. In fact the large majority have point blank said he is eligible. Folks, these are the experts, and I seriously doubt they're all wrong!