Cruz professor: According to Cruz's "originalist" view of the Constitution - he's not "natural born"

[Syriusly]

Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School, writes in the Los Angeles Times that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) would not be not be considered a “natural born citizen” under an originalist view of the Constitution.

From the LA Times:

Under either a textualist or a “living Constitution” theory, Cruz is a “natural born Citizen,” eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn’t. It’s the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.

To an originalist, a “natural born Citizen” is a person who is a citizen of the United States under “natural” principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child’s citizenship flowed from the parents’ allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.

The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father’s country. However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband’s — much rarer then than today — could not be a “natural born Citizen” of the mother’s country. That idea wasn’t even considered until 1844 in Victorian England.

The upshot is that to an originalist, someone like Cruz — born in a foreign country (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus soli) and to a Cuban citizen father (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus sanguinis ) — is not eligible to be president.

Read the rest of the article here.

Therefore, Cruz speaks with forked tongue. As much as I can't stand Trump - maybe he has a point.

Cruz is eligible.

I don't have to like Cruz to acknowledge that he is eligible.

 

[Lakhota]

Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School, writes in the Los Angeles Times that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) would not be not be considered a “natural born citizen” under an originalist view of the Constitution.

From the LA Times:

Under either a textualist or a “living Constitution” theory, Cruz is a “natural born Citizen,” eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn’t. It’s the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.

To an originalist, a “natural born Citizen” is a person who is a citizen of the United States under “natural” principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child’s citizenship flowed from the parents’ allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.

The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father’s country. However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband’s — much rarer then than today — could not be a “natural born Citizen” of the mother’s country. That idea wasn’t even considered until 1844 in Victorian England.

The upshot is that to an originalist, someone like Cruz — born in a foreign country (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus soli) and to a Cuban citizen father (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus sanguinis ) — is not eligible to be president.

Read the rest of the article here.

Therefore, Cruz speaks with forked tongue. As much as I can't stand Trump - maybe he has a point.

Cruz is eligible.

I don't have to like Cruz to acknowledge that he is eligible.

Are you a Harvard law professor?

 

[Syriusly]

The GOP should disqualify Cruz to avoid embarrassment and years of litigation about his natural born status according to the originalist interpretation of the Constitution - which even Cruz adheres to.

There will be years of litigation regardless of who runs and who is elected.

I am enjoying watching the GOP eat itself over the Cruz candidacy- stop trying to spoil my fun.

 

[easyt65]

If you could judge one's nationality based on their view of the Constitution, based on how Obama has ignored, trampled on, and violated our laws and Constitution there would be no way in hell Obama could be from the US. Based on that I would guess some hybrud Russian-Mexican-Muslim mix.

 

[Davros]

Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School, writes in the Los Angeles Times that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) would not be not be considered a “natural born citizen” under an originalist view of the Constitution.

From the LA Times:

Under either a textualist or a “living Constitution” theory, Cruz is a “natural born Citizen,” eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn’t. It’s the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.

To an originalist, a “natural born Citizen” is a person who is a citizen of the United States under “natural” principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child’s citizenship flowed from the parents’ allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.

The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father’s country. However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband’s — much rarer then than today — could not be a “natural born Citizen” of the mother’s country. That idea wasn’t even considered until 1844 in Victorian England.

The upshot is that to an originalist, someone like Cruz — born in a foreign country (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus soli) and to a Cuban citizen father (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus sanguinis ) — is not eligible to be president.

Read the rest of the article here.

Therefore, Cruz speaks with forked tongue. As much as I can't stand Trump - maybe he has a point.

Cruz is eligible.

I don't have to like Cruz to acknowledge that he is eligible.

Are you a Harvard law professor?

I am. Well, Cambridge Actually, but same diff. And not law, but nukular psychics. Again. Same diff.

 

[Steven_R]

Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School, writes in the Los Angeles Times that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) would not be not be considered a “natural born citizen” under an originalist view of the Constitution.

From the LA Times:

Under either a textualist or a “living Constitution” theory, Cruz is a “natural born Citizen,” eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn’t. It’s the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.

To an originalist, a “natural born Citizen” is a person who is a citizen of the United States under “natural” principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child’s citizenship flowed from the parents’ allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.

The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father’s country. However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband’s — much rarer then than today — could not be a “natural born Citizen” of the mother’s country. That idea wasn’t even considered until 1844 in Victorian England.

The upshot is that to an originalist, someone like Cruz — born in a foreign country (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus soli) and to a Cuban citizen father (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus sanguinis ) — is not eligible to be president.

Read the rest of the article here.

Therefore, Cruz speaks with forked tongue. As much as I can't stand Trump - maybe he has a point.

Cruz is eligible.

I don't have to like Cruz to acknowledge that he is eligible.

Are you a Harvard law professor?

Until this professor is a judge and makes case law stemming from a law suit, his/her/its opinion is just as valid as mine.

 

[Wildman]

however, he isn’t.

he's not "natural born"

how was he born, if not "natural"??

 

[Lakhota]

Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School, writes in the Los Angeles Times that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) would not be not be considered a “natural born citizen” under an originalist view of the Constitution.

From the LA Times:

Under either a textualist or a “living Constitution” theory, Cruz is a “natural born Citizen,” eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn’t. It’s the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.

To an originalist, a “natural born Citizen” is a person who is a citizen of the United States under “natural” principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child’s citizenship flowed from the parents’ allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.

The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father’s country. However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband’s — much rarer then than today — could not be a “natural born Citizen” of the mother’s country. That idea wasn’t even considered until 1844 in Victorian England.

The upshot is that to an originalist, someone like Cruz — born in a foreign country (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus soli) and to a Cuban citizen father (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus sanguinis ) — is not eligible to be president.

Read the rest of the article here.

Therefore, Cruz speaks with forked tongue. As much as I can't stand Trump - maybe he has a point.

Cruz is eligible.

I don't have to like Cruz to acknowledge that he is eligible.

Are you a Harvard law professor?

Until this professor is a judge and makes case law stemming from a law suit, his/her/its opinion is just as valid as mine.

Apparently you don't understand the process.

 

[Steven_R]

Anyone can write an editorial or a paper for a law journal. But until it's in front of a judge, it's all academic.

 

[Davros]

however, he isn’t.

he's not "natural born"

how was he born, if not "natural"??

Natural born means citizen at birth, which he was. Schwarzenegger was not.

 

[Lakhota]

however, he isn’t.

he's not "natural born"

how was he born, if not "natural"??

Natural born means citizen at birth, which he was. Schwarzenegger was not.

You obviously don't understand.

 

[Davros]

however, he isn’t.

he's not "natural born"

how was he born, if not "natural"??

Natural born means citizen at birth, which he was. Schwarzenegger was not.

You obviously don't understand.

Is this the first time you've ever been an originalist?

 

[Lakhota]

however, he isn’t.

he's not "natural born"

how was he born, if not "natural"??

Natural born means citizen at birth, which he was. Schwarzenegger was not.

You obviously don't understand.

Is this the first time you've ever been an originalist?

It's the first time I ever knew that Cruz is an originalist - which is confirmed by his Harvard law professor. Therefore, Cruz knows he's not legally eligible to be president. He should do the honorable thing and just withdraw.

 

[Syriusly]

however, he isn’t.

he's not "natural born"

how was he born, if not "natural"??

Natural born means citizen at birth, which he was. Schwarzenegger was not.

You obviously don't understand.

Is this the first time you've ever been an originalist?

It's the first time I ever knew that Cruz is an originalist - which is confirmed by his Harvard law professor. Therefore, Cruz knows he's not legally eligible to be president. He should do the honorable thing and just withdraw.

Alan Dershowitz- who was Cruz's law professor- says he is eligible.

Dershowitz: Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law’s smartest students

While I love watching the GOP eat their own- Trump and Coulter leading the charge- Teddie is eligible.

 

[cnm]

It's the first time I ever knew that Cruz is an originalist - which is confirmed by his Harvard law professor. Therefore, Cruz knows he's not legally eligible to be president. He should do the honorable thing and just withdraw.

It's hilarious, isn't it?

 

[cnm]

Teddie is eligible.

In everyone's eyes except his originalist ones.

 

[Political Junky]

Harvard law professor: Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president is ‘murky and unsettled’

The legal and constitutional issues around qualification for the presidency on grounds of US citizenship are “murky and unsettled”, according to the scholar cited by Donald Trump in his recent attacks on Ted Cruz .

Trump has sought to cast doubt on whether the senator, who was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, is a “natural-born US citizen”. In doing so he has referred to the work and words of Laurence Tribe , perhaps the most respected liberal law professor in the country.

Tribe taught both Cruz and Barack Obama at Harvard Law School. He also advised Al Gore in the 2000 Florida recount and has advised Obama’s campaign organisation.

“Despite Sen[ator] Cruz’s repeated statements that the legal/constitutional issues around whether he’s a natural-born citizen are clear and settled,” he told the Guardian by email, “the truth is that they’re murky and unsettled.”

Tribe has said previously that the question of Cruz’s eligibility is “unsettled”. On Sunday, Trump cited that position in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, in which he described Tribe “as a constitutional expert, one of the true experts”.

More: Harvard law professor: Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president is ‘murky and unsettled’

Doesn't sound good for Cruz.

Tribe said that, as a student, Cruz was an originalist, meaning the Constitution is as written with no room for change. Apparently Cruz feels that way as long as it doesn't apply to him.
Tribe also said the Supreme Court Justices Cruz appoints would be originalists.

 

[Londoner]

Sorry, injun, but you gave up that issue in 2008.

Liberals believe Cruz is eligible.

Why?

Because Liberals don't share Cruz's Originalist view of the Constitution, which does not provide for citizenship through matrilineal blood lines. Matrilineal based citizenship was added in 1934 to correct the sexism of the Framers and bring the Constitution in line with evolving moral standards (-this is what is meant by a "Living Constitution")

So yes, liberals think that Obama and Cruz are eligible.

Unfortunately for you, Trump and your party stoked the birther fires with the claim that Obama was not eligible because he was not born in the USA. So on your reading, Cruz is not eligible either. And on Cruz's Originalist reading of the Constitution, he is absolutely not eligible.

So while we think Cruz to be eligible, we don't understand why your side keeps conveniently revising its Constitutional interpretations to fit a political agenda. Does this make Liberals morally upright by contrast? Nope, not even close. It only makes the Right look like disingenuous hypocrites who don't give a shit about the Constitution.

 

[S.J.]

So yes, liberals think that Obama and Cruz are eligible.

Sorry, too late. You have no credibility on that issue now.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Cruz professor: According to Cruz's "originalist" view of the Constitution - he's not "natural born"'

Fortunately for Cruz his "originalist" view of the Constitution is discredited rubbish.