Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore, Wiki Commons

Is Ted Cruz, like Rubio, Ineligible to Run for President?

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore, Wiki Commons

Is presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) eligible to run for President under the Constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement?

Yes, Ted Cruz released his birth certificate indicating he was born in Canada by his mother, who is a U.S. citizen. His father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.

Once again, America is thrown into a similar situation as was the case with Obama. Obama’s citizenship is highly questionable and he certainly cannot claim being a “natural born” citizen. Ted Cruz appears to be comfortable claiming he is a “natural born citizen.”

Since many conservatives are boisterously supporting Cruz, those who contend he does not meet the U.S. Constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement are destined to receive scathing criticism and personal attacks.

Cruz may believe the issue of his eligibility has been settled since he, like Obama, released his birth certificate. However, it has not and must be addressed.

Senator Cruz must explain how he meets the Constitutional requirement, clarified by the Framers, within the context of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and what America’s Founders understood the “natural born citizen” to mean.

By not challenging Obama’s citizenship Congress allowed the Presidency to remain open to any individual who could produce a hint of U.S. citizenship, totally disassembling the constitutional requirement for the president to be a “natural born” citizen through fiat and precedent, without so much as an amendment being taken to the states. In other words, the Constitution would continue to be hijacked by both political parties with American citizens cheering in utter oblivion.

If Obama could be president, if Cruz or Rubio could be president, then also Arnold Schwartzenegger could be president. A U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen whether one is natural born, naturalized, born to one parent who is a citizen, or is an “anchor baby” born to illegal alien citizens who never became naturalized citizens.

Under “Obamnesty,” those who entered illegally and became U.S. citizens would qualify to run for president. The leader of Hamas could enter illegally at this point, get Obamnesty and run for office in the future. That is the reality America is facing if voters relinquish the Constitutional requirement for “natural born citizen,” and accept “citizen” as the third requirement for presidential eligibility. (The first two are attainment of thirty-five (35) years of age and a resident within the US for fourteen (14) years. Take away the “natural born” requirement by precedent and acceptance of “citizen” candidates and it becomes a very real possibility.)

If this is what citizens want, and many conservatives have no issue with it, then this possibility could realistically happen. The Constitution is already being ignored by Obama and conservatives complain loudly, as they should. Many conservatives though are willing to overlook a “violation” in the Constitutional requirement for president when it involves their “man.” The can of worms was opened with Obama. Now the barn door is open. Either it gets closed now, or America will reap what it sows.

According to Cruz’s own statement, “if you say you support the Constitution, show me where you stood and fought for it.” This should not only apply to candidates, but every American as well.

 

Interchange Ted Cruz with Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, or Rick Santorum. It makes no difference. Any of these individuals should expect to be asked the same question– just as Obama’s eligibility has been consistently questioned.

Many are calling Cruz a “candidate for American patriots,” and, those who question his eligibility, as the “new breed of birthers.” Not only that, but anyone who “attacks” Cruz (which means challenging eligibility) will be dubbed “progressive,” “a Republican elitist,” or RINO by many in the conservative community.

Yet, here I stand to support the Constitution – to fight for what it clearly states.

Defending the Constitution has nothing to do with “disliking” Cruz. Defending the Constitution is not an attack on his morality, his person, or his character. But what Cruz says he stands for, fighting for the Constitution, must be first explained by him as to how he satisfies all three Constitutional requirements to be president.

Tim Brown is an author and editor for FreedomOutpost.comSonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.comTim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

Tags

Guest Columnist

Want to continue the conversation? Share your thoughts in the comments section below. Want to start a new conversation? Contact us and demonstrate that you've got something to say, and know how to say it. Maybe we'll publish your work on Constitution.com

Please leave your comments below

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments