Ted Cruz Can Too Become President

 

Over at The Atlantic, David Graham notes that, a) Ted Cruz was born in Canada, but that, b) he could become president anyway.  The money graf:

Helpfully, the Congressional Research Service gathered all of the information relevant to Cruz’s case a few years ago, at the height (nadir?) of Obama birtherism. In short, the Constitution says that the president must be a natural-born citizen. “The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born Citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including any child born ‘in’ the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements,” the CRS’s Jack Maskell wrote. So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen. You can read the CRS memo at bottom; here’s a much longer and more detailed 2011 version.

The need to raise huge sums, a press that already loathes him, even his own Republican colleagues in the Senate, many of whose noses he seems already to have put badly out of joint–all that might stand between Ted Cruz and the White House.  But the Constitution won’t.

Somehow, I like knowing that.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive
    @ScarletPimpernel
    Babci

    Scarlet Pimpernel: In 1790, the First Congress declared that the child of a citizen, wherever born, was a “natural born” American citizen.

    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

    You misrepresented your own citation…it says “that the child of CITIZENS,” …you need TWO of those citizens.

    To understand the Constitution, you have to understand INTENT.  The Founders were very rational human beings.  They were establishing a new nation.  Wouldn’t they want a President who was undeniably loyal to only one nation…the new one they had just fought to establish?     · 5 hours ago

    I think it makes more sense to read that line as meaning the children of all citizens living outside the U.S., as opposed to the children only of some citizens living abroad.  The plural was designed to designate a class (citizens outside the U.S.), not to particular couples, one at a time.

    I’m curious about the case law from the time about whether that applied to fathers and mothers equally. But nowadays, since women have full citizenship rights, presumably it would apply to both. 

    • #31
  2. Profile Photo Member
    @

    I agree completely. I’ve spent way too many hours on another conservative board arguing with the hair-shirt Republicans who delight in finding ways that we can exclude good candidates from running.

    They are hell-bent on coming up with a dozen conditions that, in their opinion, define “natural born citizen”. It’s a badge of honor to them that their supposed devotion to the Constitution is so strong and so steady that they will harm themselves to prove it.

    Really, really dumb.

    • #32
  3. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Babci
    Craig Howard: 

     It’s a badge of honor to them that their supposed devotion to the Constitution is so strong and so steady that they will harm themselves to prove it.

    Really, really dumb. · 5 hours ago

    Okay, let’s see if I understand.  We should look the other way because this time it is our best candidate that might have a problem with eligibility.   

    But, ethically, the end never justifies the means.  

    So, it’s not really, really dumb.  It’s just really, really principled.

    • #33
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.