Discussion: Centuries-Old English Law May Hold The Answer To Ted Cruz's Birth Issue

TPM Article Topics
#21

It’s true that progressives argue that the Constitution is a living document, whose interpretation has to evolve with the times. However, if the Constitution uses a phrase such as “natural born citizen”, it’s useful to understand what the drafters had in mind when they used that term. It’s not likely they were talking about Cesarean deliveries, or in vitro fertilizations. As Macmanamon suggests, from Madison’s perspective (and he was one of the primary drafters), it meant “born here”.

Moreover, and with all due respect, the “it seems to me” analysis doesn’t go very far when the Supreme Court is involved.

8 Likes
#22

So “Constitutional Conservative” Cruz must rely on a “radically liberal” interpretation of the law to become president. The irony.

18 Likes
#23

Mr.Cruz was naturally born in Canada. He not a “natural” born American.

4 Likes
#24

All I know about the issue is that it couldn’t be happening to a more deserving asshole.

23 Likes
#25

Teddy Cruz’s case is pretty simple. It is not clear that his momma was a US citizen. She became a Canadian citizen so that she could sponsor her baby-daddy Rafael for Canadian citizenship. She was on the list of people eligible to vote in Canadian elections and voted regularly in Canadian elections.

Why would she opt for Canadian citizenship when she could have sponsored her baby-daddy for US citizenship just as easily as a US citizen.

She has not renewed or traveled on her US passport. She has not applied for a US driver’s license. She has not paid US taxes. Besides Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship just 18 months ago.

11 Likes
#26

De acuerdo. Sin embargo, I think we, i.e. US citizens now, ought to decide if we think it’s time to change. I think the framers did it because they wanted someone that grew up in the US that, because if that, would believe the power to run the US belongs to it’s leaders, and citizens, and not some foreign leader especially Kings. I don’t think that’s as big an issue now, but I could see where there could be some kid, born of an American mother that lived his whole live in some country run much differently than the US, that I might not want as president because I thought he had the wrong ideas for the US based on his upbringing. But then again I could say that about a lot of the current Republican candidates running now that were born and “bred” here!

2 Likes
#27

The law is an ass.

#28

Wow. I’ve been thinking this was all some kind of a joke. It’s real?

1 Like
#29

That’s because the wingnut base perceived Obama as black and they hate n[CLANG!]. They perceive Cruz as white and they’ll vote for him. Birtherism is a non-issue in terms of whether they’ll go for Cruz. Hypocrisy is all.

6 Likes
#30

Darn! I was hoping it would turn out to be the Salique Law.

But then again, what with the claimed inheritance via the mother, it kind of is the Salique Law!

2 Likes
#31

The professor makes a good case, although I’m not fully persuaded. And let’s face it, even if Ted Cruz is the face of the Devil (and he is), it’s very, very unlikely that a court would rule a major candidate from a major (but not for long, the way they’re going) part ineligible.

Actually, however, it might be simple to get this into court soon. I should think that voters in any state in which Cruz has been approved for the ballot would have standing to challenge his eligibility.

#32

“After Cruz graduated from the University of Texas in 1961, he was granted political asylum in the United States following the expiration of his student visa.[1] He became a Canadian citizen during his residence in Canada, returning to the United States with his family in the mid-'70s. He renounced his Canadian citizenship and in 2005 became a naturalized U.S. citizen.”

Why did it take Cruz’s old man, after living in this country, to become a naturalized citizen?
Why did it take so long for Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship?

6 Likes
#33

I’m certainly no lawyer, but I’m guessing that centuries-old English law has no bearing on the matter.

For Chrissakes, the Second Amendment of our own Constitution, a fetish these faux patriots claim to worship, clearly states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” And even that didn’t mean a goddamned thing.

Right wingers will decide this based on what they think is best for advancing Republican power – period. Granted, they’ll latch on to anything as a rationale for whatever they decide, even centuries-old English law, but only as an afterthought to gin up a rationale, not as factual input to the decision-making. Facts are provably antithetical to right wing decision making.

How dare you question the anointed Future King of America and His blessed Father, progenitor of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ Almighty?

4 Likes
#34

And I, for one, find it fucking hoo-larious!

Up until now, Cruz has been waiting in the wings, believing he’s going to inherit Trump’s constituency when the blowhard implodes, all the while, forgetting that he is the embodiment of all of the things Trump supporters hate: hispanic foreigner taking jobs from rich white dudes. Somewhere in America, there’s a pasty-skinned white guy without a Senate seat because this fucking foreign-born Hispanic stole it!

He also happens to be an elitist Ivy-league snob. Should be nail number three in his political coffin. Yet, somehow, inexplicably, he has a very real chance of winning the nomination.

And, though I know most people are afriad of Trump, I am terrified of Cruz. The guy is a genuine psychopath in my humble opinion.

16 Likes
#35

Yes, reject him for his policy ideas, and his attempt at a theocracy…and now we are finding out that he is as corrupt as we have always suspected…

1 Like
#36

With respect: No. The base will vote for Cruz. He already has Iowa and the evangelicals locked up. He will not be perceived as “colored”. With the wingnut base, appearances are all.

Cruz is a threat.

7 Likes
#37

I’m confused as to why the professor seems to say that “Blackstone said natural-born was born on British land” and then discusses “radical” British statutes from the 18th century saying that anyone born abroad to natural-born fathers is natural-born – even though Blackstone included that in his summary and never mentioned that it was “radical”. Did she read to the end of Blackstone’s piece?

1 Like
#38

And probably a whole lot faster than taking the SCOTUS route, haha!

1 Like
#39

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Much of what the courts deal with when it comes to interpreting laws, the Constitution, etc. IS parsing of words and their meanings.

Thus, it’s incredibly important just what the Founding Fathers meant by the phrase “Natural Born” when they wrote it.

They just as easily could have written “Citizen” alone, but didn’t. Obviously deliberately so.

So any other contemporary source data which would help clarify exactly what they were thinking (e.g. if the common understanding of the phrase at the time was that “natural born” mean “born on this soil” when used in conjunction with “citizen”, then it’s crystal-clear what the outcome will be) is going to be massively important to any court case.

13 Likes
#40

Ted does not fit this description because it’s his mother who was a citizen. Ted was born outside of the US to a citizen, but that doesn’t automatically make him a natural born citizen.

3 Likes
Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available