Skip to content
Advertisements

Ted Cruz to announce Presidential bid

March 22, 2015

Ted_Cruz It is being reported in this story that tomorrow Ted Cruz will become the first candidate to officially announce he is going to run for the office of the Presidency in 2016. There will be plenty of time to vet Ted Cruz and to discuss his positions on the issues but I wanted to write about something else tonight that I think will be interesting to watch play out on both sides of the isle in regards to this news.

  That issue is role-reversal and some talk show hosts have been talking about this for awhile now. Specifically there are two issues at hand: The first issue is, and I think you all know what it is, Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for President. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and this presents a problem to the birthers who still will not accept Barack Obama as a legitimate President based on the origin of his birth. 

  It will be interesting to see how many people on the left who have been defending Barack Obama against the birthers’ claims will now try to make the claim that Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for the Presidency and, likewise, it will be interesting to see how many birthers support Ted Cruz despite his being born in a foreign country. (Just for the record, lawyers have already stated he is eligible to run for President.) 

  Both sides will use a Tu quoque argument to justify their positions. (I believe that is the proper term for this type of you did it too argument, if not I hope somebody will correct me.) Meanwhile his qualifications will be ignored.

  And speaking of his qualifications, this brings us to the second issue I think will be interesting to watch play out and that is Ted Cruz’s experience. Many of those who oppose Barack Obama claim that as a one-term Senator he was a novice who did not have enough experience to become President (I happen to be one of those people) so the question is; how do we justify voting for Ted Cruz who is also a first-term Senator? It is true that Ted Cruz has served four years of his first term before making this decision whereas Barack Obama served only two years of his first term but that is only a small, irrelevant distinction in my opinion.

  This second issue presents more of a paradox to me personally because while America’s Watchtower covered the issue of Barack Obama’s birth certificate when it first came to light I quickly realized that this was not an issue his opponents should focus on because it was never going to go anywhere, even if it is true, and presented nothing but a distraction. (I also think Barack Obama purposely played into this to distract his opponents from the real issues.)

  However I have railed against Barack Obama’s lack of experience many times so how can I possibly justify voting for a man who has little more experience just because his positions might be more closely aligned with my beliefs? And there are many more like me out there as well, all of this is suddenly out the window?

  I do not think the left will focus on Ted Cruz’s lack of experience but I do think they will delight in the chance to turn the tables on the birthers and personally I do not blame them because if the tables were turned I would do the same and I would have a good time doing it.

  As for Ted Cruz’s chances at winning the Republican nomination; I do not think they are very good because he is one person who has not backed down in the face of the establishment and he has not exactly endeared himself to the leadership within the party so people like Karl Rove, and the other party insiders, will throw millions of dollars toward somebody like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie in an attempt to defeat him in the primary and if history is any indication the party leadership will get what they want.

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Advertisements
15 Comments leave one →
  1. lgbmiel permalink
    March 22, 2015 8:57 pm

    As much as I like Cruz, he is not a natural born citizen, he’s not eligible. At the time of his birth, only his mother was a U.S. citizen. Obama is not a natural born citizen, either. At the time of his birth, his father was a british subject.

    http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

    Liked by 1 person

    • March 22, 2015 9:28 pm

      That’s funny. I’d say that the only transference of allegiance comes from the mother.

      Interesting blog post otherwise, but the weight of legal convention wisdom seems to support Mr. Cruz’ candidacy, despite his Canadian birth.

      Take good care and may God bless us all!

      TGY

      Like

      • lgbmiel permalink
        March 22, 2015 10:17 pm

        Yes, it is an interesting blog which quotes actual Congressional members and House Reports regarding natural born citizenship. It’s not ‘legal convention wisdom’ that counts. It’s how the Founders defined natural born citizen that counts.

        Neither Cruz nor obama are natural born citizens because their fathers were not citizens. They are both citizens, but not natural born. There is a difference and one that only matters in presidential eligibility.

        ‘House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” ‘

        A natural born citizen cannot be the child of a parent who owes allegiance to another country. Both Cruz’s and obama’s fathers owed allegiance to other countries. They are not natural born citizens.

        The 14th Amendment defines who is a citizen, but not who is a natural born citizen. Anchor babies are not citizens because their parents were not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. “…jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.”

        ‘Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” ‘

        ‘Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))’

        ‘Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))’ Bingham

        ‘Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one.’

        ‘Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*’

        ‘* Temporary sojourners like transient aliens were a description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel, visitation or school, who had no desire to become citizens or was prevented from becoming citizens by law. Resident aliens were those who desired to become citizens and had renounced their prior allegiances and had taken the legal steps to become citizens or reside within some state per state law.’

        That’s funny. I’d say that the only transference of allegiance comes from the mother.

        I think this answers your question, guess you didn’t read this far.

        ‘UPDATE: In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother: Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.’

        http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

        Cruz is not Constitutionally eligible. Of course, since that didn’t stop obama, I doubt anyone will make a fuss about Cruz. I really like him, but I cannot support him.

        Liked by 1 person

    • March 23, 2015 5:51 am

      Thanks for sharing that Laura. This is an issue that is not going to go away no matter how much conservatives might like him. The article I linked to says two lawyers (one from Obama’s regime and the other from Bush’s) have stated that he is eligible to run for President.
      I only skimmed through this this morning before work, I will have to go back tonight and read it more thoroughly.

      Like

      • lgbmiel permalink
        March 23, 2015 10:55 am

        Those articles left off a very important part when citing their definition of natural born citizen – that the parents must be citizens also.

        In the article you linked, their source is ‘On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” ‘ even uses parents – plural.

        ‘…just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” ‘

        “The Naturalization Act of 17908×8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795).
        provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”

        The article goes on to say:

        “But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.” ” http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

        Except, that’s just the definition of a citizen, not a natural born citizen. Congress can change the law, but they can’t change the Constitution or the meaning of the words used in the Constitution. That requires an amendment. Kind of like the 14th – which did not define natural born citizen, only citizen.

        No one disputes that Cruz is a citizen, he is just not a natural born citizen by the definition of the Founders or those who wrote the 14th Amendment. That definition can’t be changed by Congress or SCOTUS, that can only be changed by amendment. To be a natural born citizen and eligible to be president, a person must be born to two citizens.

        It’s funny, in trying to establish Cruz’s eligibility, they have made a case for why anchor babies should not be granted citizenship – that place of birth doesn’t establish citizenship. The parents of anchor babies are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. – they are citizens of another country – they are not in the Country legally, therefore, the children are not citizens.

        It hasn’t even started and I’m sick of it already. The Founders were clear. The people who wrote the 14th – written for freed slaves, mind ya – were clear. As I said in my other comment, the law didn’t matter in obama’s case, it’s not gonna matter in Cruz’s either.

        I would love to be able to support Cruz, but I just can’t. I really, really dislike hypocrisy. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • March 23, 2015 7:13 pm

        Very interesting info Laura, thanks for sharing. I have often thought the 14th amendment has been perverted to create these anchor babies. The “jurisdiction” clause of the amendment is always ignored by people who claim the 14th amendment created anchor babies and of course we know the amendment strictly applied to the children of freed slaves but like everything else it has been expanded over the years to mean something it did not.

        Like

    • March 24, 2015 11:09 am

      .

      lgbmiel,

      “Obama is not a natural born citizen, either. ”

      _President_ Obama was born of a USA citizen (mother) on USA state/land (Hawaii). This of course meets all the USA Constitutional requirements for being eligible to serve as President of USA.

      Article II, Section 1.

      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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

      _________________________~

      Enjoy lgbmiel’s mis-reading of the Constitution. But am surprised that lgbmiel missed reading the Constitution in the following manner. “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;”.

      The Constitution was adopted in September 1787! Given that neither Mr Cruz or Mr Obama was a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution (1787), then they are not eligible to the Office of President.

      Poof. Problem solved.

      You’re welcome.

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Like

  2. March 23, 2015 10:31 am

    Tu quoque argument –Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/; Latin for “you, too” or “you, also”) or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with that position.
    olie molie I will have to get out my old Latin Books! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  3. March 23, 2015 11:02 am

    Jeb Bush or Chris Christie??? Oh my lord, no, please no. 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  4. March 24, 2015 10:59 am

    A reader on another site posted this link to a very interesting blog.

    “…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

    “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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.” https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/

    The other SCOTUS cases cited by the Harvard Law Review dealt only with citizenship, not natural born citizenship.

    Another post on the blog discusses 3 different times House Rep Bingham (OH) stated the definition of natural born citizen. Bingham was the ‘father’ of the 14th amendment. These statements were made in 1862, 1866, and 1872. One before and two after the 14th was ratified.
    https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/

    It’s interesting that Bingham cited two requirements – born in the U.S. and both parents being citizens.

    I read a few of his posts, very compelling.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: