Iowa Republican presidential caucuses winner Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was an American, having been born in the United States, who had never renounced her American citizenship. His father was born in Cuba.
Donald Trump, loser in Iowa (but winner in New Hampshire and leading the polls in South Carolina prior to Saturday’s pivotal primary), began trumpeting his latest justification for his election before he lost in Iowa: Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Democrats will take Cruz to court, so vote for The Donald.
The evidence that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii was always clear to most given the birth announcement in a Honolulu newspaper, but even had the 44th president been born in Kenya, he would still have likely been deemed eligible for the Chief Executive’s office.
Article 3, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never been ruled upon the meaning of the phrase “natural born” (which occurs no where else in the founding document) and in most conceivable lawsuit-challenge contexts would likely deem the issue a “political question” and defer the issue to the Electoral College and/or the Congress when they approve or disapprove electoral votes after receipt from the states.
But, what if a state executive official empowered to approve or disapprove candidates for inclusion on primary, caucus or general election ballots were to rule Ted Cruz as not natural born and thus ineligible to serve as President of the United States? In that instance, the nation’s highest court may have to interject itself, much as in the 2000 Florida recount.
Constitutional attorney Andrew McCarthy provides needed insight including from a 2015 Harvard Law Review article, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen,” [by] Neal Katyal and Paul Clement (former Solicitors-General in, respectively, the Obama and George W. Bush admininistrations), [in which they] explain that:
British law explicitly used the term “natural born” to describe children born outside the British empire to parents who were subjects of the Crown. Such children were deemed British by birth, “Subjects … to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.” The Constitution’s invocation of “natural born citizen” incorporates this principle of citizenship derived from parentage. That this is the original meaning is obvious from the Naturalization Act of 1790. It was enacted by the first Congress, which included several of the framers, and signed into law by President George Washington, who had presided over the constitutional convention. The Act provided that children born outside the United States to American citizens were “natural born” U.S. citizens at birth, “Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
It is likely, given 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause jurisprudence that residency would be applied to either parent, but in the case of Ted Cruz, his father has resided in the United States for many years.
Birthers also mistakenly cite Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to restrict the definition of “natural born” and “citizenship” even though the clause never mention the former and doesn’t purport to restrict the latter:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
There was no question at the time of the ratification of the Constitution nor of any of the amendments that the children of Americans born abroad were also American citizens at birth. What the post-Civil War 14th Amendment sought to make clear was that former slaves born in United States were citizens equal to non-slave citizens.
So maybe Donald Trump would do better to return to the issues of building of a border security wall that would save us so much in money now spent to house, educate and medicate illegal aliens that Mexico would in effect “pay for it” and ending the cheap labor/Chamber of Commerce Free trade absolutism policy? We think so.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Did I miss the lingering effects of the supposedly disastrous-for-Republicans government shutdown, which was the obvious motivation of Paul Ryan’s November 19, 2013 pre-budget-negotiation-guarantee that, and I quote, “We will keep the government funding at the current level if need be.”
Atta boy Paul, that’s a tough negotiating position…not!
Since the government shut down for 16 days last October, the Democratic Party’s 2014 electoral prospects and President Barack Obama’s approval ratings have plummeted due to the Obamacare website roll-out disaster, cancellation of insurance plans Democrats had promised Americans they could keep, and hikes in policy premiums. Curiously, despite a government shutdown that establishment Republicans feared so much that they betrayed Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT) and other conservatives attempts to de-fund or delay Obamacare at the 11th hour, GOP prospects for the 2014 election have greatly improved. Continue reading
Next time a liberal Democrat justifies Obamacare as a better alternative than private insurance companies, remind them of sovereign immunity.
Before King Obama and his Royal Court of congressional Democrats passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, prospective patients weren’t forced enter into contracts with private health insurance companies they didn’t trust. But if they did enter into a contract with a non-government company of any kind, they could sue for monetary damages for false advertising that induced them into the contract and for breach of the contract if the company didn’t abide by it’s terms. Continue reading
From its inception, the individual and employer mandates got the ink. But it was always the insurance mandates that were key to Obamacare’s main objective: To kill the private insurance industry in order to make a single-payer, i.e. socialized medicine, system inevitable.
President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats spewed forth a veritable cornucopia of lies that Americans happy with their “current” policies, could keep them.
Never mind that the government hadn’t the power before the Supreme Court upheld the individual and Continue reading
Offered no less than two chances to delay Obamacare’s individual mandate earlier this month, not one Democrat in the United States Senate refused to grant Majority Leader Harry Reid’s motions to table those delays during the government shutdown.
Yet, now that the debt limit has been raised and Big Government is back in full swing, legally; elected Democrat lawmakers revert to their apparently preferred role of granting their lawmaking power to Chief Executive Barack Obama.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Continue reading
What’s next, government exchanges for health care-related goods and services like personal trainers, walking shoes, housing, automobiles, gasoline, food and ferry boat rides?
Think that’s far-fetched, when President Obama’s Democratic Party policies already attack the poor and middle class by increasing the price of shelter, transportation and sustenance via EPA, HUD and other regulations?
How surreal is it, that in order to buy a private health insurance policy one must employ an Obamacare-government “navigator”? Almost as surreal it has been to be limited to Blue Cross Blue Shield under so many state health insurance monopolies in pre-Obamacare-America. Continue reading
The GOP needs a government shutdown to re-establish GUT-bone fides with the American people.
Republicans should allow President Obama to shut down the government on behalf of his Big Business and government employee friends to whom he has granted exemptions, subsidies and delays.
Soon after his first inaugural in 2009, President Barack Obama demanded that health care reform be passed quickly to ensure a robust recovery and balanced budget, and that it must be done in comprehensive way. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) insisted the Affordable Care Act should only be read to discover its specifics, after it became law. Having received zero Republican votes, Obamacare became the Law of the Land. Continue reading
Any Republican strategy to force Obama and the Democrats to compromise on Obamacare, taxes, spending or even the Keystone XL pipeline in a continuing budget resolution or bill to raise the debt ceiling inevitably leads to a Cruz-like government shutdown cul-de-sac.
Charles Krauthammer has known this since he worked for Vice President Walter Mondale in the late 1970s and when he watched President Reagan escape from government shutdown-showdowns with a Democratic congress unscathed in the 1980s.
For the past two weeks, as tea partier conservatives in congress led by Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Marco Rubio have sought to de-fund Obamacare, we heard nary a word from any Fox News Special Report panel that the only “intelligent” course would obviously be to tie changes in the Affordable Care Act to a debt limit bill rather than a continuing budget resolution. No, we were told that Republicans “just can’t” win any battle that could lead to government shutdown because “Republicans don’t have the votes” in Congress and so can only hope to de-fund, repeal or amend the ACA by winning back the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016. Continue reading