Ted Cruz

Welcome the Democratic Birthers

Libertarians scholars say Canada-born Cruz is constitutionally eligible; liberal ones say he is not.

|

Every time my late dad pondered the pathetic choices for prime minister of India or another high office, he'd clutch his head and rail that if India couldn't generate decent leaders from its own soil, it ought to advertise in the foreign press and

Ted Cruz Clown Car
DonkeyHotey / Foter / CC BY

get less barf-inducing candidates from abroad. That actually wouldn't be a bad option for America right now,given the emetic choices for president on both sides. But the little hitch of course is something called the U.S. constitution that stipulates that only a "natural born citizen" can be president.

This stipulation has given birth to "birther" politics whose chief modern-day peddler is Donald Trump. He first embraced the birther canard to appeal to the paranoid minded among the GOP rank-and-file when he questioned Barack Obama's eligibility for office on the loopy theory that he was really born in Kenya and had falsified his birth documents to get a Hawaii stamp! Now, Trump is going after fellow GOPer Ted Cruz because he was born in Canada.

In the last debate he nobly declared that although he personally didn't care where Cruz was born because his—Donald Trump's—poll numbers were high enough that he could win the Republican nomination "fair and square," he worried about a Democratic lawsuit if Cruz were the nominee. "I am not bringing a suit, but the Democrats are going to be filing a lawsuit," Trump warned. "And if you become the nominee, who the hell knows if you can even serve in office?" he barked.

Regardless of what one thinks Trump's word is worth, he might actually be onto something. Indeed, Cruz' eligibility has produced an interesting legal divide between libertarian theorists who believe that he is eligible and some prominent liberal theorists who believe that he is not, all of which will have interesting political implications.

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution says, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." (Emphasis added.)

Libertarian law professor and Volokh Conspiracy blogger Jonathan Adler maintains that Cruz may have been born in Canada but because his mother was American he was automatically an American citizen—or a "natural born citizen"—from birth because he did not have to undergo "naturalization proceedings." And therefore he meets the constitutional criterion for eligibility just like George Romney, Mitt Romney's father who ran for president in 1968 despite having been born in Mexico to American parents, did.

The reason why naturalized foreigners are disqualified from the presidency is to thwart the danger of a hostile takeover by an enemy power through a Manchurian candidate. There is no such danger with children of American parents regardless of where they are born. Indeed, to maintain otherwise would lead to the absurd possibility that children born to American diplomats posted abroad would be disqualified to run for president.

Georgetown University's Randy Barnett, another libertarian theorist, offers another reason to believe that Cruz is qualified. He notes that the term "natural born citizens" was adapted by the framers [of the Constitution] from the well-known British concept of the "natural born subject" of the sovereign monarch. The offspring of the king were natural born subjects of the King regardless of where they were born, whether on English territory or not. But in the United States, he notes:

We the People are the sovereign…just as the offspring of the sovereign monarch are "natural born subjects" of the realm regardless of where they are born, so too are offspring of the sovereign individual citizen "natural born citizens" of the United States, though they may be born outside its borders. Who is the sovereign, not territory, is what matters. In the United States, it is We the People, each and every one.

There are plenty of liberal theorists who agree with this analysis. For example, former Obama acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal co-authored a piece in the Harvard Law Review with George Bush's Solicitor General Paul Clement. It noted:

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen" includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

But among those liberals who dissent from Katyal about what the "relevant materials" really indicate is Cruz's former Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, whom Trump pointedly invoked during the debate. Tribe, who was actually against birthism (when Sen. John McCain was running) before he was for it (now that Ted Cruz is running), has staked the interesting ground that under a "living constitution" philosophy that Tribe favors, Cruz would be qualified. But under the "originalist" constitutionalist interpretation that Cruz favors he'd be disqualified. That's because, as per Tribe, the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 1790s required someone to be born on US soil to be a 'natural born' citizen. "Even having two US parents wouldn't suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive," Tribe insists.

This sounds suitably scholarly except that Tribe is on record contradicting himself in a memo he co-authored with conservative Ted Olson assessing similar claims against John McCain. In it, he concluded: "Senator McCain is a 'natural born Citizen' by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizens who were serving their country on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone….The circumstances of Senator McCain's birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause." Observe that Tribe notes that McCain is a natural born citizen in the "original meaning" not because he was born in the Panama Canal, U.S. territory at that time, but to American citizens, exactly what he is denying now.

Be that as it may, Widener University's legal historian Mary Brigid McManamon is pretty certain that Tribe has "evolved" in the right direction and takes Katyal/Clement to task. She argues that the English common law that they invoke on the side of their reading of the citizenship clause actually said the opposite. "The common law was unequivocal: Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory." What's more, she claims, "when one reviews all the relevant American writings of the early period, including congressional debates, well-respected treatises and Supreme Court precedent, it becomes clear that the common-law definition was accepted in the United States…"

Now, I am happy to believe that by raising all these constitutional issues about Cruz' eligibility, these scholars are doing what scholars do—which is, split technical hairs in order to indulge their theoretical curiosity, not to undermine Cruz because they despise him. (Although Atlantic contributing editor Garrett Epps, no conservative himself, has his doubts. "I can't resist thinking that the chance to twit the ever-pompous Cruz has led these scholars into sloppy thinking," he muses.)

But regardless of their motives, there is little doubt that Democratic apparatchiks will have a field day with this tantalizing fodder, as Trump predicts. Washington Examiner's Sean Higgins reports that Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida is already preparing his court papers. "I'm waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he's unqualified for the job because he is ineligible."

In other words, welcome to the birth of birther politics among Democrats.

NEXT: Upcoming talks -- East Coast and Midwest

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. With our immigration policy, both enforced and unenforced, why should anyone be surprised by a rise in birther politics? A greater share of the population is and will continue to be in circumstances that they may not be eligible for the presidency. Should we just read out eligibility requirements as they get more inconvenient for more and more people?

    1. Well, it is a living document.

      1. However, the presidential eligibility clause, preciely the term natural born Citizen is by virtue of natural law and natural law is immutable, so the term natural born Citizen can never be changed. As it stands right now, Cruz, Rubio, Santorum and Obama are all ineligible as they are not natural born Citizens!

      2. What is? The Constitution of the United States? And, precisely, how do you come to that conclusion? I don’t know what side of the debate you are on, so, don’t take this a ‘snarkery.’ But, since, this HAS become a major issue, that affects all Americans, I am interested in the reasoning and feel it important for the debate going forward.

        1. No, the definition of a natural born Citizen, is immutable. I’m a conservative. I like Trump, Carson and Fiorina, so my mind’s not made up yet. I’ve been researching the natural born Citizen issue for over 7 years now and 100% positive I have the evidence to prove Cruz and Obama are ineligible. My evidence is all posted below, look for the several comments that are stringed together under my name.

    2. Because no one running for president isn’t eligible. This has nothing to do with immigration policy and no one is suggesting that we “read out” the requirements.

      1. Yes, Cruz, Rubio and Santorum are all ineligible, along with Obama.

        1. No, they aren’t.

          1. Ok, please post the evidence that proves they are all natural born Citizen.

          2. Hellloooo, where did you go? Do you have ANY evidence to prove those claims? If not, then that is just your opinion, not fact!

          3. all were BORN HERE, and of TWO parents who were US CITIZENS at time of birth?

            GIve date and place of birth, name and citizenship of each parent at the time of that birth.

            Until you do, and they meet the above qualifications, they are not.

            1. Wrong, Cruz & Obama were not born here.
              Wrong, none of them were born to two citizen parents, so all are ineligible.

              “GIve date and place of birth, name and citizenship of each parent at the time of that birth.
              Until you do, and they meet the above qualifications, they are not.”

              HUH? That’s what I said, I said that none are eligible?

  2. Who’s more American than Arnold Schwarzenegger?

  3. Welcome back, right? Hillary’s supporters were the original birthers after all.

  4. Observe that Tribe notes that McCain is a natural born citizen in the “original meaning” not because he was born in the Panama Canal, U.S. territory at that time, but to American citizens, exactly what he is denying now.

    No, that’s close to what he is denying now, but it isn’t *exactly* what he is denying now. Cruz wasn’t born on U.S. territory, and he was born to one American citizen, not to American citizens.

    1. Cruz wasn’t born on U.S. territory,

      Neither was McCain. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone. It was not US territory at the time, but was in an odd treaty intermediate zone (probably not unlike Gitmo today). Someone born there of Panamian parents would not be a US citizen.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

      he was born to one American citizen, not to American citizens

      One citizen or two makes no difference.

      What Tribe is arguing really is that Cruz isn’t allowed to claim eligibility without compromising his originalist view of the Constitution. What Tribe assumes is that the Constitution’s use of the term “natural-born” was meant, at the time, to mean only people born on US soil (the old “jus soli” theory) and excluded anyone born of US parents outside the US (“jus sanguinis”). If there is any basis for that, I haven’t seen it, and its inconsistent with what the first Congress did.

      1. Since Cruz didn’t have to go through naturalization proceedings, doesn’t that answer the question of what our legal system thinks of his “natural-born” status?

        1. No, it doesn’t answer the question. To be a natural-born Citizen, the child must be “born in a country of parents who were its citizens”. Cruz’s father was not a citizen, nor was Cruz born here. So for Cruz to “become” a citizen, he must be naturalized and take the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance, which requires him to renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

          We know that on May 14, 2014, he renounced his Canadian citizenship, so when and where did he apply for naturalization? He didn’t! That means that Ted Cruz is stateless, a man without a country. Cruz is not even a citizen, much less a natural born Citizen, just like Obama!

      2. Yes, The Panama Canal Zone WAS US territory at the time of McCains’s birth!

        1. I think the technical term is “unorganized” territory. Which I take to mean, not really US territory (in the sense that many States were before being admitted as States), but nobody has a good word to describe it.

          Yeah, the US was de facto in charge, but the fact that there was a treaty which granted/reserved rights inconsistent with sovereignty complicates things.

          1. Gimme a break. You think the Founders would say “if they were somewhere stationed outside the country at war” and the wife of a soldier who there as the cook, had a baby, that they would say it’s not a natural born Citizen? You are crazy. Besides, I posted all the evidence below that proves what a natural born Citizen is, you should scroll down and read it. Its several comments in a row, so you shouldn’t miss it.

            1. You are the person who is claiming that just because a US citizen happened to be in Canada that their child is suddenly not natural born citizens.

              Also, its a great point: would a nice Panamanian citizen who gave birth in the Canal zone have a US citizen child?

              1. It has to do with allegiance and your parents citizenship. If you have 2 citizen parents, you have no divided allegiance and are thereby a citizen by nature and not a man made law, which grants naturalization.

          2. Unorganized territories are territories which Congress has direct authority over as opposed to organized territories that have a territorial government.

        2. Panama never gave up their sovereignty over the land.

          1. Yes they did. Even wikipedia knows this:

            “On February 26, 1904, the Isthmian Canal Convention was proclaimed. In it, the Republic of Panama granted to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of the canal. From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States, which had built the canal and financed its construction. The Canal Zone was abolished on October 1, 1979, as a term of the Torrijos?Carter Treaties of 1977; the canal itself was under joint U.S.?Panamanian control from 1979 until it was fully turned over to Panama on December 31, 1999”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone

            1. Yeah, that’s a rental agreement.

      3. The key distinction between McCain and Cruz is that McCain’s *father* was American while Cruz’s *mother* was his only American parent. At the time the Constitution was signed, the prevailing definition of “natural born” was linked to patrilineal descent. Cruz’s nationality would have been inherited from his father.

        1. Exactly!
          Vattel’s Law of Nations ?212. Citizens and natives:
          “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

      4. I’m not convinced that “one citizen or two makes no difference.” The official arguments are over whether “jus sanguinis” applies at all, but most people believe that it does apply when both parents are citizens. That was basic high school civics, back when I was a sprout. The real issue, for most people, is whether one citizen parent is enough to qualify. And for a lot of people, the answer is either “no” or “it depends.”

        1. Read my evidence below and you’ll be 100% convinced.

      5. Mc Cain was born in a hospital on a military base which, by international law and custom, is considered the territoty of the nation whose base it is.

        And yes it DOES matter whether one or both parents are US Citizens. Read the Federalist Papers, and the journals of the delegates to the Constitutional COnvention that drafted our Constitution.. particular attention to be paid to the notes and discussions amongst them concerning the specifici eligibility requirements for President and Vice presicent… particluarly note the weight they gave to the FACT that, in the Executive branch, the two at the top )pres and VP) both old unique power as Commander in Chief of all military. What difference did thsi make? Go and learn what THEY thought about it, and WHY they did what they did. Those guys had just lived through decades of out of control British monarchy.

        1. Yeah, the Washington Post says that were need to remove the natural born requirement. Says we are not in the same situation as the Founders were and that they were afraid of foreigners taking over….they says we are not afraid of that anymore… SAYS WHO?

          “It’s time to remove the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement from the Constitution”
          See the article here: http://tinyurl.com/zqbk5t8

    2. McCain MIGHT be eligible because his father was active duty military not because of his place of birth.

      1. Yes, that is why his is eligible and also because both parents were citizens at the time of his birth, avoiding a double allegiance.

  5. Meh. Call me when 30% of the Democratic Party is questioning Cruz’s eligibility.

    1. You should be one of those 30% as he is not eligible!

  6. So Trump just slyly proposed that Cruz might have a problem with the left challenging him on birther grounds, which prompted the left to begin challenging him on birther grounds, lending credence to Trump’s assertion that Cruz is too risky to nominate.

    You’d think people like Alan Grayson would realize that they are playing right into Trump’s hand.

    1. Why would Grayson recognize this? The man couldn’t think his way out of a paper bag. Thank God for him he manages to get by on his looks.

      1. I would think that any human being could recognize that when someone tells you to jump, and you do so, you are following their orders… but we’re dealing with politicians here, so maybe I’m giving the guy too much credit.

      2. Because I sent him all the evidence that proves Cruz and Obama ineligible.

    2. The better question is: Why would the Democrats not prefer Trump as an opponent compared to Cruz? From what I have seen, Trump has higher negatives.

      1. Trump is a wild card. (His name is trump!)

        He just took Bill Clinton out.

        He took out Jeb just by calling him low energy.

        Of course Hillary is nervous.

        Trump is very good at these un-polite but effective attacks.

        Hillary has real problems with her health, and her drinking.

        Anyone but Trump would never bring those up, and the media won’t either.

        Trump can do that directly, and force the media to respond.

        Oh, and he will beat the “She’s being investigated by the FBI” drum very effectively.

        He’s quite good at bringing up topics, and forcing coverage.

        1. Sorry for the double space formatting.

    3. However Cruz is ineligible, just like Obama!

  7. Funny, I would think the clown car would be Trump and the Democrats rather than Cruz here. He’s eligible. It’s been long established that the standards are that the children of Americans living abroad are Americans. This isn’t a new issue and it was decided long ago. It’s not an “interesting debate”. It’s idiots trying to rewrite the rules to serve their own purposes.

    1. The evidence I posted below proves that Cruz and Obama are both ineligible.

    2. Since there is no law or federal case defining the phrase NOTHING has been decided.

      1. Its not a phrase, as in proper noun, that you should be looking for, its the definition of a citizen according to natural law. That is where the “natural” comes from. This is proven by the author of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship as he claims a US citizen is “by virtue of natural law” (below). So will find the definition via natural law, which is also below.

        Jacob Howard (author of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause)
        “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

        1. Natural law definition of a citizen by nature:

          ?212. Citizens and natives:
          “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

      2. there are at least four Supreme COurt cases that defined the term. They ALL require born here, of two citizen parents. The plural form of the word is ALWAYS used. And, if there were no distinction between citizen and natural born citizen, why would those oh so careful Framers make the distinction? They were not given to being vague.

        1. Cite a case where the RULING says “A natural born Citizen means …..”

          1. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

            “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    3. yes, such children ARE Americans, and sligible for all sorts of things.. EXCEPT being president. READ the history and law. American is good enough for congresscritters, judges, etc, but NOT for president and vice president.

      And don’t you realise the Clown Car is a takeoff on the types of cars found in Cuba, the home of Ted’s Father at the time Ted was borh? That car would not work for Trump. Maybe a limo or something like that, but not a Cuban jalopy.

  8. That said, I think I might understand why Ms. Dalmia might object to the idea of citizenship by lineage, rather than geography.

  9. Not even a good try.

    Your party of choice, GOP, owns birtherism, as evidenced by the fact that not only has the concept been risen again by the one leading in GOP polls, it has been raised by other candidates as well…Huckabee, Santorum, Fiorina, oh and even by libertarianish Rand Paul. I missed Democrat candidates who have given it any real thought.

    And even your libertarian scholar, Adler, updated the article you cite with this:

    “UPDATE: Several readers object that this post simplifies what is, in actuality, a very difficult constitutional question. The precise original public meaning of “natural born citizen” may not be as clear as my post or the Katyal-Clement article suggests. For reasons why, see this 2010 essay by Lawrence Solum.”

    And then he admits that natural born citizen definition is “murky.” And Tribe, who Reason absolutely loved when he questioned the constitutionality of Obama’s coal plant restrictions, has said exactly the same. It’s not clear. And Trump has said the same.

    1. So you open with a claim that “the GOP is the true birthers” and then go on to yourself support birtherism against Cruz.

      1. Nope. I think he is eligible. But like Adler, it’s just my opinion. In fact, I hope he is. Just pointing out that all the questions come in fact from the GOP. Oh, and Rand Paul.

        1. Really doesn’t matter where they came from. Trump wants people to make a big deal about this so that Cruz looks to “risky” to elect, and the last person with 20% support in the Republican polls falls. Regardless of who started it, the fact that people left and right are now doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do points to the fact they are unwitting puppets to The Donald, who has been systematically verbally striking down anyone who’s numbers climb to high one way or another.

          This time all he did was say that Cruz’s birth COULD be a problem, now idiots on the left and right are asserting it IS a problem, proving Trump right. The egomaniac has essentially recruited his opponents to propagandize for him.

          1. Not a problem, a question. And the GOP raised it…once again.

            1. Trump framed it so that the question IS the problem. The question becomes a problem for Cruz because he makes it risky. He raised it, and the democrats and republicans alike have now embraced it, proving his original point right.

              Who cares if GOP Trump raised the question if those on the left and right alike are playing directly into his hands?? It doesn’t ABSOLVE those on the left spouting birtherism at Trump’s command just because it was someone on the right who issued the command.

              Trump says not to nominate Cruz because the Democrats will bring a birther lawsuit against him. Alan Grayson then saying he WILL bring a birther lawsuit against Cruz if he is nominated only proves Trump ~correct~!! Grayson isn’t absolved of his stupid birtherism just because Trump is controlling him like a sock puppet. If anything, it makes his birtherism even STUPIDER since he’s advancing Trump’s cause with it!!

              1. I doubt Grayson has any standing to bring suit. It may only be the other nominees, or if Cruz wins, the Democrat nominee.

                May not even happen.

                1. Doesn’t matter, man. Trump doesn’t care if Grayson goes through with it (Trump doesn’t believe Grayson will get the opportunity to do it, since Trump assumes he will be the one winning the Republican Nomination, not Cruz) Trump just wants people TALKING about how this could potentially be a problem for Cruz, and wants people like Grayson threatening to bring about lawsuits.

                  Whether or not someone WILL bring up a lawsuit or if the lawsuit will be successful is not relevant to Trump’s plans. He wants enough people talking about it to seem like it COULD, potentially, be a problem for a Cruz candidacy in the future. This gives a vote for Cruz in the primaries an extra level of RISK, and people tend to be risk adverse. The more risky a vote for Cruz seems, the less likely people will vote for him.

                  And as Cruz is the last candidate polling anywhere near Trump, scaring people away from Cruz is Trump’s goals.

                  Trump doesn’t care whether the threat of eligibility lawsuits are real, tangible, or dangerous. He cares that the threat of those lawsuits sound scary and problematic to voters.

                2. Believe it, he has the goods, which I posted below!

              2. Grayson has the evidence to prove his claims. I know this because I gave it to him!

              3. you reduce Trump’s question to political grandstanding. WHAT did Trump say/do when Obama rose to the fore back them? My understanding is he raised the question the….

                either Cruz is, or is not, constutionally eligible, (he is not, per the definitions in view by the framers who carefully put that requirement on the two offices where it is most critical). If he is, then fine. But if he is not, oppositin will arise on taht basis. The question is, will Cruz muster enough purchased courts to toss out any challenges on techicalities, as happened when the kinyun was running? Unlikely, as most of the courts seem to be on the dem side of life. Federal courts, anyway, the ones who would, per the Constitution, have to hear this.

                Imagine what would happen if Cruz were to get the nomination, suit filed, and three months prior to the election, be disqualified? NOW WHAT? Cruz should have hit this head on two years ago and got a clear determintion./ Arnold Schwartzenegger did that when he considered running for Pres. Disqualified. Fine, he’s done other things. Cruz should have….

            2. Good thing, and we better get to the facts this time, which will prove Cruz and Obama ineligible!

              1. Pssst. Obama was elected twice, and can no longer run for office.

                You’re too late.

                1. Obama is a Usurper and anything with his name on it is null & void, including his SCOTUS appointments. If you are not a legal President, you have no right to do anything Obama did. It’s Unconstitutional and notwithstanding, not to mention FRAUD!

          2. Of course it matters where they came from. You have to be born here to be natural born and both parents must be citizens at the time of birth! Cruz is ineligible.

        2. He’s not eligible and neither is Obama. Read the evidence below that I posted.

    2. like you ever make a decision based on anything other than Tribe, joe.

    3. And by the way, Shikha, where do, as your man Adler states it, difficult constitutional questions get resolved? In the courts, and possibly ultimately in the Supreme Court. There never was a constitutional question regarding Obama’s birth (Hawaii), instead just a conspiracy theory.

      1. Trump is playing you like a fiddle, haha.

        1. No, Rand Paul is.

          1. so it’s established you are a fiddle and we’re just haggling over who is playing you.

            1. Didn’t you mean to say “so, Joe…”

              1. why did you come back boyle? I thought this place was racist.

                1. There we go, no I can ignore you again.

          2. Paul doesn’t benefit from Cruz’s downfall. Trump clapped and asked everyone to make a big deal out of Cruz’s birthplace, and here you are now obeying him, playing into his narrative that Cruz is to risky to elect, and helping the decline of Cruz’s numbers.

      2. There never was a constitutional question regarding Obama’s birth (Hawaii),

        The controversy was stoked, intentionally I am sure, by Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate.

        And then, when he did, people were prohibited from examining the original, and given a .pdf scan with a bunch of weird layers and artifacts, followed, if memory serves, by another .pdf scan with fewer weird layers and artifacts.

        Personally, I think Obama saw the value of the birthers as a distraction, and played them like a fucking fiddle. Trump is just following Obama’s lead, here.

        1. Yeah, birtherism. An Obama conspiracy.

          1. Give Obama some credit. I’m sure someone on his campaign realized the birthers taking up time and space with a non-issue was valuable from preventing more level-headed political adversaries from having as much time leveling harder questions at his candidacy.

            Or do you assume Obama, who was successfully elected POTUS, had campaign strategists that couldn’t recognize this basic strategical value of withholding just enough information to de-legitimize birther claims without eliminating the birthers as a loud voice??

          2. I don’t think Obama started it. We know Hillary’s campaign did that.

            I just think Obama very cleverly saw a use for it, and intentionally stoked the controversy as much as he could.

          3. Obama believes in “stray voltage” where you can use stuff like this to your advantage.

            Being a “victim” is very powerful stuff nowadays. “Look, they are attacking me!” garners sympathy.

            He didn’t invent birtherism, but he used it. Lemons to lemonade.

            BTW, he also didn’t correct his book blurb that he was born in Kenya, back when that was advantageous. I guess he could have just missed that, but I suspect he was okay with the “exotic” card to sell some books.

      3. There is a constitutional question. Is a person born in the US to a foreign parent an nbC. There’s no conspiracy Obama’s BC plainly lists Kenyan Obama Sr. as his father.

      4. It doesn’t matter where Obama was born, he’s still not eligible!

      5. many suits were brought to block Obama’s election and presidency. They were ALL thrown out on techical issues, the heart of the cases were never heard. The defense (Obama and Co) bought or shopped venues to find judges known to be on their team. Some were, apparently, threatened or coerced when they seemed to be moving forward on the merits of the case. But at NO TIME were the root issues and solid evidence bearing on the subject matter of the case ever heard.

        1. Yeah, I took my eligibility case all the way to the SCOTUS, dismissed as not being in the public interest! PPFFFTT, now it is!

    4. By the way, here is legal scholar Solom’s thoughts on the “murkiness” of natural born citizen.

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa…..id=1263885

      And who knows if he is Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian. Maybe just a legal scholar.

      1. Written in 2010, not in regard to Cruz.

    5. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Your party of choice, GOP[…]

      He babbled his first words!

      Get the camera! Quick!

    6. So Jackand, what you’re saying is that there might be a difference between someone who supports a conspiracy theory– frequently for reasons of racial animus– about Obama being born in Kenya and someone who doesn’t think someone born in Canada is “natural born?” God, you’re such a Team Blue hypocrite!

      1. Cruz is half-brown just like Obama.

      2. There is no conspiracy concerning the fact that Obama’s father was a foreigner.

        1. Yes there is, he’s ineligible!

          1. no conspiracy attempting to establish that Obama Senior was a British Subject….. plain and simpl,e he was. The conspiracy comes into play when ever attemt at law to establish that the FACT of Obama Senior’s statius as British Subject disqualifies Obama Junior from the presidency. EVERY time a case was brought, it was dismissed on technicalities, the issues and merit were never dealt with in any court. THAT is the conspiracy.

            And those same conspirators are already hard at work with the end in view of assuring Cruz cannot be elected. Or that if he is, he’s soon removed from office. My guess is they’ll wait till we are just a few months out from the election, Cruz running well, and some owned judge will rip the carpet out from under him, declare him ineligible, prohibit the election moving forward with Cruz on the ballot…. when chaos ensues in reaction, the reigning kinyun will simply have his hand forced, and declare martial law.

    7. Nah, this is Tribe’s unsuccessful attempt to poke holes in originalism and your pathetic attempt to score partisan points.

    8. Jackand Ace|1.19.16 @ 10:08AM|#
      “Your party of choice, GOP, owns birtherism,”

      Hi, there, shitstain! Glad you came back to prove what an ignoramus you are, as if we needed further proof.
      Hint: you’re a imbecile who has no idea with ‘libertarian’ means.

    9. Your darn skippy we OWN IT and proudly, as the evidence proves we are right. Scroll down and look at the evidence that proves both Cruz and Obama ineligible.

      1. SmokinGun, Your argument is akin to those who cite the Bible as proof that everything written in the Bible is true.

        1. then YOU go and read some iriginal sources that were held as the basis for the Framers making this requirment a condition of serving as the Commander in Chief of our military. Federal Papers, journals and diaries of the Framers as they hammered these things out, earlier versions of the Constitution that were later modified to become the final version ratified, the refernces and authorities consulted, and the four Supreme Court cases that have dealt with the issue of Natural Born Citizen…. all of which concur.

          Don’t write off someone because he says something different. go to the fount and learn for yourself. Warning: those original and early sources WILL prove you wrong and him nright.

          1. Thank You and FYI, I’m not a him : )

            I know, these idjits always tell me on twitter that I have no evidence and it’s all in my head…idiotic stuff…if they would just look at it, it’s obvious that it all fits together perfect…they all say the same exact thing! And they think THEY are right, after producing noting but words…mannnnn, like to wring their necks! But we will get the last laugh when the media FINALLY gets the truth out or someone else of authority…

            I’m sending Trump a certified letter tomorrow with all the evidence and hopefully he will get it and start announcing the evidence and in the end, Obama will be proven ineligible and sheeet will hot the fan then!

        2. Obviously you didn’t READ the evidence yet!

  10. “Tribe notes that McCain is a natural born citizen in the “original meaning” not because he was born in the Panama Canal”

    I thought he was born in the Panama Canal *Zone.*

    Did McCain’s mother confuse the Panama Canal with the birth canal?

  11. Now, just because Trump and Tribe say something doesn’t make it false.

    But I’d need some convincing before believing what they say.

    The original meaning of natural born citizen seems to be a borderline issue, but I think the scales are tipped by the fact that Congress, in 1790, said people born abroad to U.S. citizen parents were (“shall be considered”) natural born citizens.

    It’s possible that the First Congress misinterpreted the very Constitution which many of its members had a hand in adopting, but if the First Congress is capable of error, so are Trump and Tribe, and I’m more willing to say these gentlemen erred than to impute such an error to the First Congress.

    A more plausible objection is that Cruz claims natural-born citizenship through his mother, whereas in 1790 citizenship passed through the father. I’m open to the possibility of a sexist interpretation of the Constitution (a bunch of bewigged misogynists!), but in this case, the omission of sex-specific language* tells against that interpretation.

    *I’m referring to the original constitution, not the 14th and 19th amendments.

    1. sex specific language in the constitutional text, that is.

    2. To be specific, Congress in 1790 excluded the foreign-born from citizenship if their fathers hadn’t lived in the U.S. long enough.

      But the statute cannot be reconciled with Tribe’s “born on U.S. soil” interpretation.

      1. Moreover, that was an act of “naturalization”, so if anyone claims that law makes them a citizen, they are naturalized, not natural born as natural born Citizens are citizens by nature, not man made law!

        John Bingham (Author of the 14th Amendment)
        “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)

        1. If citizens are made by nature how do immigrants become citizens? Bingham’s definition is “born in the country to citizen parents”.

          1. Natural born Citizens are made by nature, Immigrants become citizens by naturalization!

        2. Bingham wasn’t around in 1787-88, when the qualifications for President were being adopted.

          1. So, they had access to historical records and at that time, Vattel’s Law of Nations was still the textbook in colleges for the “Class on National Law”, so they all knew what a natural born Citizen was!

      2. I welcome Hillary Clinton executing the revocation of probably hundreds of thousands of citizenships based improperly on matrilineal descent.

        #waronwomen

        1. I think millions is more like it!

    3. Scroll down and look at my evidence, it’s 100% convincing and proves beyond doubt that Cruz and Obama are inelgible.

    4. Congress, in 1790, said people born abroad to U.S. citizen parents were (“shall be considered”) natural born citizens.

      still disqulaified Cruz, note well the PLURAL form of the noun “parent”. That means more than one, and since Cruz only had ONE citizen parent at time of birth, he IS disqualified.

  12. Obviously, “natural born” means “delivered vaginally rather than via Cesarian section”.

    1. Hail *Caesar*!

  13. That Democrat party, always trying to keep the brown man down.

  14. I’m not here to comment on or read Shikha’s article because they are useless. However I would like know why when black lives matter blocked five lanes of a major California highway it was mentioned for only one minute on the local news and nothing at all on any of todays news except for the guardian. I know why because what they did does not look good and the leftist media doesn’t want to show those clowns for what they are. If anybody else had done this it would be called terrorism and if they were Oregon Ranchers they would be charged with terrorist acts. They are just lucky nobody died on their way to a hospital yesterday. thats my rant and I hope it creates a little discussion.

    1. Little discussion…I AGREE

  15. “My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  16. For the life of me I cannot understand why people write articles like this, when they’ve not researched the issue at all. This article shows no evidence whatsoever to prove its claims, then expects people to believe their opinion.

    The evidence proves beyond doubt that Cruz and Obama are not natural born citizens and there is no one that can refute that evidence.

    1. What evidence is that now?

      1. There’s lots of evidence. First, which I prove below, a natural born Citizen is a citizen “by virtue of natural law”, that’s where the word “natural” comes from & that, is the definition of citizen, the Founders used, which reads as:

        Vattel’s Law of Nations ?212. Citizens and natives:
        “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

        1. We have the author of the 14th Amendment (minus the citizenship clause) on record stating the exact same thing (below).

          The Honorable John Bingham:
          “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)

          Then you have Senator Jacob Howard, author of the 14th Amendment “citizenship clause” where he clearly states our citizenship is “by virtue of natural & national law” (below), again confirming the natural law definition:

          “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

          1. It was the 1866 Civil Rights Act that first defined a citizen. It failed to pass several times until the citizenship clause amendment was added and reads as:
            “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”.

            When the CRA bill went over to the House, the future author of the 14th Amendment, which was written just weeks later, replied on record regarding that addition to the bill and reads as:

            “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen” (1866 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 1291)

            Which again, confirms the natural law definition.

            1. Just months later, during the 14th Amendment debates, Senators asked Senator Lyman Trumbull (author of the Civil Rights Act) why the wording had changed and just what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant. Trumbull replied stating:

              “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893).

              And for the 5th time, confirms the natural law definition of citizen. If ya got any room left on that head of yours to scratch, go for it! I don’t know how it can get any more clear, not to mention you have the Supreme Court backing it up in the case of Minor v. Happersett in which it reads: (Cont in next comment)

              1. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
                “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

                1. And the case of The Venus even quotes Vattel by name…

                  The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
                  Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
                  “The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
                  Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
                  “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

                  The American people need to wake up. They are giving our country away to foreigners and if they don’t wake up and snap out of it, we are going to lose our country. Once they set precedent that you don’t even need to be born here to be President (which Obama is fulfulling now) then it over.

                  PLEASE WAKE UP

      2. Now, is that good enough evidence for you, brady949 or should I produce more? I have loads more that confirms my claims and if you are interested in the cited links in these comments, my website contains all those, which takes you to all the original documents listed here. Anyone interested in the TRUE facts regarding natural born Citizen, please visit my website here: http://www.unslaveamerica.com/usurper-obama/

        1. I saw all this on World Net Daily before. No need to visit your site.

          1. LOLOL, WND, got all their evidence from MY RESEARCH, thank you very much for the compliment!

  17. This just in: Democrats explore possibility that Obama couldn’t be President after all.

    I know that isn’t really the point of the article, and the ‘Birther’ arguments seem stupid to me, but that’s a can of worms you’d think they would avoid. Perhaps they’re trying to be all ‘ironic’ or something?

    1. If you don’t understand the term natural born citizen, why don’t you research the issue, so you can make “informed”, truthful comments?

    2. If you don’t understand the term natural born citizen, why don’t you research the issue, so you can make “informed”, truthful comments?

      1. So give us your best argument, Smokin. As I look upthread, all I see is this:

        the term natural born Citizen is by virtue of natural law and natural law is immutable

        Sorry, but “natural law” provides no articulated definition of “natural born”. Traditionally, there are two separate definitions: Jus soli (right of the soil, or citizenship by place of birth) and jus sanguinis (right of the blood, or citizenship by ancestry).

        Which is the natural law definition? Or could it be both? Tell us why you think it means “jus soli” and only “jus soli”.

        1. Scroll up, the evidence is all right there!

  18. “Birther”

    The term is an epithet meaning one that is unhinged and unwilling to confront objective reality and one that I’ve employed against reactionaries when they talk about Barack Obama being a, uh, Kenyan. But I stipulate that there might be a difference between people denying that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii– a demonstrable fact backed up by multiple lines of evidence– and an interpretation of the meaning of “natural-born citizen”. I interpret that as meaning born in the United States and believe that one can be a citizen, but not a natural-born one.

    However, if push came to shove and libertarians managed to elect our 4th choice among the Republican field, I’d probably defend his ability to hold office. Not because I don’t think the meaning of natural-born means natural born, but because I don’t give a rip about the Constitution. Neither should libertarians.

    1. It has nothing to do with where Obama was born. Even if he was born in Hawaii, which he wasn’t, he’s still not natural born as his father was never a US citizen. End of Story!

      1. Check Aisle 6 for tin-foil hats. Jack’s over there waiting for you.

        1. Scroll UP and check the evidence for yourself!

      2. That’s kind of nutty man.

        1. Did you go through the evidence?

    2. I interpret that as meaning born in the United States

      No one questions that “born in the US” qualifies as “natural-born”.

      What people are questioning is whether that is the only way to be “natural-born”, or whether the term is a little more expansive and actually means “citizen at birth”.

      1. You obviously didn’t look at the evidence above!

    3. Thank you.

      You have made it clear why the left aren’t birthers – ” because I don’t give a rip about the Constitution”. They don’t give a shit about the rule of law.

      Some Republicans and libertarians do.

      1. Amen. It’s sad what they think of their country and its history, very sad!

    4. Observe that the nationalsocialist cares not about the oath of office elected candidates must take.

  19. This article misrepresents Tribe’s position. He believes Cruz is eligible to run, and that if he ran, the courts would uphold his victory.

    “…Cruz would be eligible to serve because it no longer makes sense to be bound by the narrow historical definition that would disqualify him.”

    “To be sure, no real court is likely to keep Cruz off the ballot, much less remove him from the White House if he were to win….”

    Tribe’s point with the article is to illustrate the depth of Cruz’s hypocrisy. Cruz claims to be a constitutional “originalist”, meaning that the constitution should be interpreted today from the historical context of the original framers. Then he abandons his position whenever it’s inconvenient. Tribe’s article goes on to list examples of these departures.

    To repeat: Tribe’s not a birther. His position has not changed. He’s pointing out that if Cruz were to be consistent in his stance on Constitutional interpretation, he would have to disqualify himself from the race.

    It’s really irritating when people like Dalmia intentionally misrepresent the facts. It does nothing to further the debate and only adds chum to the water. Which, I fully understand, is their goal in the first place.

    1. However Cruz is not eligible to run, he’s not a natural born Citizen as proven above

  20. For the record, I always assumed natural born meant citizen at birth.

    I know you were all dying for my take.

    1. Yeah, that’s the problem, that’s what most people “assume” and it’s 100% false. You must be born on US territory, but both parents must also be citizens (natural born or naturalized). That was the Founder’s intent!

  21. Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida is already preparing his court papers. “I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he is ineligible.”

    That’d be a stupid time to file. For one thing, the Republican state parties could still change their nominee. For another, their electors could still vote for someone else if they won the election. And the court might not even take the case since there’s no genuine case in controversy until he’s elected.

    The time to sue would be after the electoral votes are unsealed. Then if the court decided he was ineligible, the candidate with the next largest electoral vote total would be inaugurated. Presumably that’d be the Democrats’ nominee.

    1. There’s a huge question as to whether or not courts–at least the lower courts–have jurisdiction in this matter.

      1. They had jurisdiction in my Obama eligibility case. I never had a problem with jurisdiction or standing, they got me on laches, which was a complete lie, as I had court records to prove I filed within the 2 day window required by MD law.

  22. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    —————— http://www.richi8.com

  23. my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $78 hourly on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $17581 just working on the computer for a few hours. view website

    [] ???????========http://www.Wage90.Com

  24. To suggest that many Democrats believe in birther nonsense is itself nonsense.

    They believe in it as a way of kicking Cruz in the jimmies. They’re such godless commies that they will advance arguments they don’t actually believe.

    1. They’ll get theirs. The media will keep this issue out there as the lean left and when the truth finally comes out that proves Cruz ineligible, will also prove Obama ineligible and they will look like the biggest fools in American history!

  25. To suggest that many Democrats believe in birther nonsense is itself nonsense.

    They believe in it as a way of kicking Cruz in the jimmies. They’re such godless commies that they will advance arguments they don’t actually believe.

  26. To suggest that many Democrats believe in birther nonsense is itself nonsense.

    They believe in it as a way of kicking Cruz in the jimmies. They’re such godless commies that they will advance arguments they don’t actually believe.

    1. But, alas, I don’t suspect they’ll push the matter hard. Doing so would expose Comrade Obama’s blatant ineligibility. Of course, some of them just might be that stupidly short-sighted.

      1. Some of them, pretty much 99.9% of them. Yes, they will make fools of themselves when Obama is proven a Usurper, I can’t wait!

  27. iPhone no work good.

  28. Worst article on Reason ever!

    Adler is wrong. You can be naturalized at birth. The law which granted Cruz his citizenship is actually called “The Immigration and Naturalization Act”. I mean is has NATURALIZATION right in the title!

    As for Manchurian candidates if the criteria is born a citizen that includes kids born in the US to two foreign parents! You forget about that Dalmia?

    1. But if you had to be naturalized that implies to me that you weren’t a natural born citizen you were a naturalized at birth citizen.

    2. Yeah, they left and even some on the right have “decided” that being natural born means being a citizen from birth. I guess they think if they say it enough, it will be law…kinda like birthright citizenship, which is a total myth.

  29. WRONG…………….

    There are plenty of people that are NOT liberals that question eligibility!!

    Publius Huldah, KrisAnne Hall are 2

    1. …and Dr. Herbert Titus, Mario Apuzzo (atty and leading expert on this subject), etc. etc, etc.

      1. Hmmm, TItus is a (D), didn’t know that. He was almost my attorney for my Obama eligibility case, back in 2012.

  30. when the question first arose with the kinyun, it did not take much research to find out what the Framers understood as “natural born citizen”. It having been made clear that Obama was born in Kenya (his book, early editions, and testimony from his paternal grandmother both established that). And it was abundantly clear that Obama Senior was a British Subject at the time of Junior’s birth. Apply the definition operant at the time that clause was written, which requries that the individual in question must be BORN HERE, and of TWO parents both CITIZENS at the time of the birth in question. No matter how one argues the “Hawaii birth” claims with their fraudulant documents to “prove” them, he never was and never can be eligible. Many attempts to block or undo his tenure as president failed.. NONE of them based on the merits of the case or facts, ALL of them having been thrown out by means of various technicalities.. “lack of standing” being the most common one. Now I ask, has ANY American been harmed by the actions of this man in office? Then we ALL have standing.

    1. Funny that when many were working along these lines to disqualify the kinyun, prior to his ascension or afterward, we all got the label as nutjobs or whiners, sore losers, conspiracy theorists, malcontents, anarchists.. as also did the many who cited “anomalies” in voting such as certain precincts in Ohio returning ballots numbering 120% more than the number of registered voters…. which tallied a 100% vote count for Obama, a statistical impossibility. It was all written off as sour grapes…… grow up, kwitchyer whining…..

      I find it more than a little disturbing that so many who question Cruz’ eligibility today are accused of the same things,,,, but this time by the very ones who wanted to see Obama dethroned.

      Have any of these “antibirthers” considered that we HAVE a Constitution, and that IT is the supreme law of the land, and was written precisely the way it was for GOOD REASON? Among the best of those reasons is solidly supported by a close hard look at the current holder of that office and the mess he’s made of this nation in the seven years he’s been on his throne. HE is precisely WHY that clause was written into our Supreme Law of the Land.

      1. Cruz was born in Canada, NOT the USA. His American Mum failed to file the requisite form declaring the birth of an American abroad… which would go a long ways toward establishing the claim that Ted is a US Citizen. But things get completely derailed when we add into the mix that Cruz Sr. was, at the time of son Ted’s birth, a Cuban citizen.

        There are several “categories” of citizenship: natural born, native born, naturalised, citizen. Natural Born is born here, both parents US citizen at time of birth. Parents can be any of the “categories” above, as long as they are legal US Citizens. Native born is born here of at least one parent a citizen of any category. Naturalised is a foreign person who fulfils the requirements set by Congress to take up US Citizenship when one is not. And “ordinary” citizen, which can be born here or abroad of one or more US Citizen parents, raised here, or abroad them brought here as US Citizen by birth and declared at 18th birthday they are US citizen.

        Cruz fits this last category.

        Interestingly enough, if Cruz Senior had had another son, borh here, AFTER Cruz Sr had become a US Citizen, that younger son would be NBC and ths eligible. But Cruz, being born abroad of Cuban father does NOT meet the requirement.

        1. There is another faux category much spoken of these days, that of “anchor baby”. A child born here of foreign nationals not citizen or resident….. but, per the 14th Ammendment, since these were not born here “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, they are NOT citizens at birth. Their parents, by being here contrary to law, are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and if found, are liable to deportation. They are “under” the jurisdiction here as far as if they get caught in the commission of a crime they are subject to criminal process here under our laws… but the people themselves are not “subject” to the jurisdition of the US… could they vote, hold public office, get a social security card, work, enter into contracts binding here, etc? Nope.

  31. The argument is on whether to trust the facts, or just your feelings.

    1. …or your political loyalties

  32. If the Founders thought that the most important criteria for an American President was that he be born within the territorial confines of the United States, they would have said NATIVE BORN. That they didn’t, it would seem that they accepted the concept of “sovereignty” within English Common Law that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” extended beyond national borders as long as one considered themselves so subject.

    1. Wrong “subject to the jurisdiction” means “not subject to any foreign power” AND the definition of natural born INCLUDES the term native born, SO THEY DID SAY native born!

  33. Don’t count on the Progressives to got full bore on this issue. Doing so would expose the blatantly obvious ineligibility of their lord and master, Comrade Obama.

    Despite this post’s scurrilous and irresponsible use of the terms “birth canard”, “paranoid [birthers]” and ‘loopy [birther] theory”, no matter how you at “Reason” wish to cut it, fokr purposes of the Presidential Clause kthe Founders clearly understood and intended that a natural. born citizen is, in fact, a person born of two US Citizen parents within the sovereignty/full jurisdiction of the US. My God. Do some diligent and objective research before spouting yoiur mind-numbing and demeaning drivel. It’s not rocket science, folks. Even a neophyte can deduce original intent.

  34. In my opinion, There was no c-sections or test tubes back then, so why would they specify..natural, the only conclusion would be that both parents be citizens..

    1. Because natural born Citizen is a Citizen “according to natural law”, that is where the “natural” comes from!

  35. Best thread yet. Very challenging. I would love for Cruz to be ineligible, same for the rest of the GOP litter, but that has little to do with the merits of the arguments.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.