Why the Ted Cruz Issue is Actually an Issue.
During the 2008 Democratic Primary race, there were anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton in an attempt to try to revive her failing Presidential campaign. The e-mails claimed that Barack Obama was not a United States Citizen. These were the origins of the Obama conspiracy theories about his citizenship. It was not until 2011 that Pres. Obama released his so called “long-form” birth certificate to put an end to all this controversy.
The reason why I bring up the conspiracy theories about Pres. Obama’s birth place is because some people, mainly Sen. Ted Cruz’s supporters are trying to compare the concerns about Sen. Cruz’s eligibility for the Presidency to the wild and unfounded conspiracy theories regarding Pres. Obama. First things first, this is a matter of fact. Pres. Obama was born in the State of Hawaii. Sen. Cruz was born in Canada. So, right there one should be able to disregard any comparison of the two right away.
Plus, unlike the conspiracy theories regarding Pres. Obama, there are some questions coming from some mainstream sources. In an New York Times article published on January 18, 2016 by Carl Husle, Mr. Husle writes
“The overarching problem is that the Supreme Court has never been forced to interpret the clunky clause, leaving persuasive legal interpretations that range from arguing that the entire debate is nonsensical to asserting that only those born to certified American parents on verifiable American soil can aspire to the White House.”
This is true, the Supreme Court has certainly not settled the issue of natural born citizenship. In the Husle article, Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar claims that the so-called “natural born” provision has outlived it’s usefulness and it’s original intent. In the article, Dr. Tribe is quoted saying.
“The worry that George III might come over and exert undue Germanic or British influence is no longer a threat,” said Mr. Tribe, referring to a motivating fear of the founding fathers. “There is no defense now for retaining the clause in the Constitution. It really needs to be removed.”
In an Washington Post article published on January 10 2016, Mary Brigid McManamon, a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School writes
“The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
So, as we can see, there are credible opinions doubting Sen. Curz’s eligibility. But this opinion is in no way universality shared. One a Factcheck.org article by D’Angelo Gore, Mr. Gore argues that Sen. Cruz in indeed a natural born citizen and is eligible to hold the office of President. Mr. Gore writes “Cruz, who came to the U.S. at age 4, is a citizen by birth because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born. For that reason, legal scholars argue that he can likely be president.” However, in the same article, Mr. Gore writes “…still some lingering uncertainty about Cruz’s eligibility. That’s because the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the meaning of “natural born citizen,” which the Constitution doesn’t define.”
Sen. Cruz himself, is an accomplished attorney and has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Sen. Cruz has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court. Sen. Cruz was the Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to 2008. So, Sen. Cruz certainly has more authority to give input about who is eligible hold the office of president than me.
As a person with no law degree or any training in the law, I can’t not comment if Sen. Cruz is eligible to hold the office of President. However, one does not need a law degree foresee what the Clintons and the Democratic party will do if Sen. Cruz is chosen as the Republican Party nominee. If there is not clarity from the High Court on what makes a citizen “naturally born”, then there will be lawsuits filed from the Clintons and the Democratic party because that is how politics work. Those of us hoping for a Republican victory in 2016 really don’t need any distractions and the uncertainty of if Sen. Cruz is eligible to hold the office of President is most certainly a distraction.
So, one should not dismiss questions about Sen. Cruz’s eligibility, especially if they want a Republican victory in 2016. If Sen. Curz is chosen as the Republican Party nominee before the High Court gives clarity on this issue, then I will be unable to vote for a man that I don’t know for certain is eligible to be President.
