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

[Synthaholic]

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

Really? You don't consider Hawaii one of our United States?

It is not one of the 57 states, according to Obama.

^^^ Hey, look! It's Rabbi once again unable to back up his bullshit!

Oh...you've seen it a thousand times before? Never mind.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Doochawitch is wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

LOL....how ironic coming from S.J.- who has never had any credibility on any issue.

Cruz is eligible.

And it is delicious watching the GOP eat their own over the issue- lead by the chief GOP Birther- Donald Trump.

 

[Lakhota]

The Senate passed a resolution declaring that John McCain's Panama Canal Zone birth qualifies him as a "natural-born citizen" and therefore eligible to be president. However, since the Senate hates Cruz - he is highly unlikely to receive a similar resolution.

 

[S.J.]

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

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

LOL....how ironic coming from S.J.- who has never had any credibility on any issue.

Cruz is eligible.

And it is delicious watching the GOP eat their own over the issue- lead by the chief GOP Birther- Donald Trump.

I never said he wasn't, dumbass.

 

[imawhosure]

Former judges, constitutional scholars, and even the left wing have said this OP author wrong. When Lacooter comes up with a judge; any judge, left or right; that agrees with his/her premise, I will follow the thread. Until that time, this thread is waste of bandwidth, proving conclusively that the left, has no compunction against wasting assets, if it promotes their ridiculous agenda!

 

[Lakhota]

Cruz's natural-born status will likely end up at the Supreme Court, and even the NaziCons on the court will be very careful how they rule - because it will set a precedent for future presidential candidates.

 

[boilermaker55]

Watching the interview last night, this man put everything into perspective as to how the conservative/tea baggers work.
Great post.

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.

 

[Lakhota]

Watching the interview last night, this man put everything into perspective as to how the conservative/tea baggers work.
Great post.

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.

Thank you! I also watched it. I totally agree with Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe's analysis. He made a clear and convincing case that Cruz's presidential eligibility is very questionable. As much as I detest Trump - I thank him for pushing this issue. It would be sweet poetic justice to see Cruz get a dose of his own birther medicine.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

NOT A CRUZ SUPPORTER.

Under jus sanguinis, the citizenship of a child would not depend on his or her place of birth, but instead follow the status of a parent (specifically, the father—or, in the case of an illegitimate birth, the mother)


But even if the status of the father was the crux then you would have to prove that his father had pledged loyalty to another country.

 

[Lakhota]

SCOTUS will have to settle this issue.

Legal Scholar: Ted Cruz's SCOTUS Picks Wouldn't Let Him Run for Prez

 

[imawhosure]

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.

NOT A CRUZ SUPPORTER.

Under jus sanguinis, the citizenship of a child would not depend on his or her place of birth, but instead follow the status of a parent (specifically, the father—or, in the case of an illegitimate birth, the mother)


But even if the status of the father was the crux then you would have to prove that his father had pledged loyalty to another country.

Well, I thank your response. I believe that if Cruz questioned Obama's eligibility, then he should answer this question conclusively. What goes around, comes around; or at least that is the old proverb.

Letting this sit out there doesn't work for Cruz, just as much as it didn't for Obama. If he doesn't put it to bed quickly with at least "judges opinions," then he is also a pretender. It should be absolutely no problem to settle the question, since there is no disparity on what happened, and the facts in the matter. He is not disputing anything, just if in his circumstance, he is eligible.

This is one of those threads that make, or break a posters credibility. He is invested 100% as the OP author. To regain credibility IF his synopsis is proved in error, he/she must either apologize for an error in judgement, or be relegated to ignore, which I will surely push.

Should his/her synopsis be accurate, then I will personally apologize to him/her, even though I have not taken a definitive stance on the issue.

For me, it is about INTEGRITY and ACCURACY of the board. He/she needs to make the same pledge!

 

[Contumacious]

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.

NOT A CRUZ SUPPORTER.

Under jus sanguinis, the citizenship of a child would not depend on his or her place of birth, but instead follow the status of a parent (specifically, the father—or, in the case of an illegitimate birth, the mother)


But even if the status of the father was the crux then you would have to prove that his father had pledged loyalty to another country.

Well, I thank your response. I believe that if Cruz questioned Obama's eligibility, then he should answer this question conclusively. What goes around, comes around; or at least that is the old proverb.

Letting this sit out there doesn't work for Cruz, just as much as it didn't for Obama. If he doesn't put it to bed quickly with at least "judges opinions," then he is also a pretender. It should be absolutely no problem to settle the question, since there is no disparity on what happened, and the facts in the matter. He is not disputing anything, just if in his circumstance, he is eligible.

This is one of those threads that make, or break a posters credibility. He is invested 100% as the OP author. To regain credibility IF his synopsis is proved in error, he/she must either apologize for an error in judgement, or be relegated to ignore, which I will surely push.

Should his/her synopsis be accurate, then I will personally apologize to him/her, even though I have not taken a definitive stance on the issue.

For me, it is about INTEGRITY and ACCURACY of the board. He/she needs to make the same pledge!

IN BOTH CASES , THE MOTHER WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, SO THEY WERE CITIZENS OF THE US

Attaining Citizenship in the United States: jus soli, jus sanguinis, etc.



By Having a Parent who is a U.S. Citizen (Jus Sanguinis)

.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

NOT A CRUZ SUPPORTER.

Under jus sanguinis, the citizenship of a child would not depend on his or her place of birth, but instead follow the status of a parent (specifically, the father—or, in the case of an illegitimate birth, the mother)


But even if the status of the father was the crux then you would have to prove that his father had pledged loyalty to another country.

Well, I thank your response. I believe that if Cruz questioned Obama's eligibility, then he should answer this question conclusively. What goes around, comes around; or at least that is the old proverb.

Letting this sit out there doesn't work for Cruz, just as much as it didn't for Obama. If he doesn't put it to bed quickly with at least "judges opinions," then he is also a pretender. It should be absolutely no problem to settle the question, since there is no disparity on what happened, and the facts in the matter. He is not disputing anything, just if in his circumstance, he is eligible.

This is one of those threads that make, or break a posters credibility. He is invested 100% as the OP author. To regain credibility IF his synopsis is proved in error, he/she must either apologize for an error in judgement, or be relegated to ignore, which I will surely push.

Should his/her synopsis be accurate, then I will personally apologize to him/her, even though I have not taken a definitive stance on the issue.

For me, it is about INTEGRITY and ACCURACY of the board. He/she needs to make the same pledge!

IN BOTH CASES , THE MOTHER WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, SO THEY WERE CITIZENS OF THE US

Attaining Citizenship in the United States: jus soli, jus sanguinis, etc.



By Having a Parent who is a U.S. Citizen (Jus Sanguinis)

.

You are obviously confused. Cruz was not born on U.S. soil.

In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court – an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption – Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.”

He added: “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.

“On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors – a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time – Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.”

Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”

More: Harvard scholar: Ted Cruz's citizenship, eligibility for president ‘unsettled’

 

[Contumacious]

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.

NOT A CRUZ SUPPORTER.

Under jus sanguinis, the citizenship of a child would not depend on his or her place of birth, but instead follow the status of a parent (specifically, the father—or, in the case of an illegitimate birth, the mother)


But even if the status of the father was the crux then you would have to prove that his father had pledged loyalty to another country.

Well, I thank your response. I believe that if Cruz questioned Obama's eligibility, then he should answer this question conclusively. What goes around, comes around; or at least that is the old proverb.

Letting this sit out there doesn't work for Cruz, just as much as it didn't for Obama. If he doesn't put it to bed quickly with at least "judges opinions," then he is also a pretender. It should be absolutely no problem to settle the question, since there is no disparity on what happened, and the facts in the matter. He is not disputing anything, just if in his circumstance, he is eligible.

This is one of those threads that make, or break a posters credibility. He is invested 100% as the OP author. To regain credibility IF his synopsis is proved in error, he/she must either apologize for an error in judgement, or be relegated to ignore, which I will surely push.

Should his/her synopsis be accurate, then I will personally apologize to him/her, even though I have not taken a definitive stance on the issue.

For me, it is about INTEGRITY and ACCURACY of the board. He/she needs to make the same pledge!

IN BOTH CASES , THE MOTHER WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, SO THEY WERE CITIZENS OF THE US

Attaining Citizenship in the United States: jus soli, jus sanguinis, etc.



By Having a Parent who is a U.S. Citizen (Jus Sanguinis)

.

You are obviously confused. Cruz was not born on U.S. soil.

In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court – an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption – Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.”

He added: “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.

“On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors – a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time – Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.”

Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”

More: Harvard scholar: Ted Cruz's citizenship, eligibility for president ‘unsettled’

YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY CONFUSED SINCE CRUZ' MOTHER WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN THEREFORE THE JUS SANGUINIS CONCEPT APPLIES REGARDLESSS OF WHAT THE HARVARD SCHOLAR SAYS


.

 

[Lakhota]

Oops, does not apply to Cruz.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

Ted Cruz's eligibility to be a decent human being is 'murky and unsettled'.

 

[Mustang]

Why do conservatives want to elect a Canadian as President of the USA?

 

[Contumacious]

Why do conservatives want to elect a Canadian as President of the USA?

Were the WORST presidents in our nation's history Canadians?

Ape Lincoln
Woodrow Wilson
FDR
Bush II

.

 

[Lakhota]

Why do conservatives want to elect a Canadian as President of the USA?

Good question. Especially considering Commie Canuck Cruz's daddy was a Cuban Castro communist and he was born in a foreign country.