LOLGOP — May 12, 2013 at 7:44 am

Yes, Ted Cruz IS eligible to be President of the United States — encourage him to run and help end the GOP


Don’t even get any of that birther stink on you

Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_CongressTed Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born in Calgary. This makes him a “natural born citizen” and eligible to become president of the United States. For this same reason, Barack Obama would be eligible to be president even if he were born abroad — he wasn’t.

“The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born Citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including any child born ‘in’ the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements,” according to the Congressional Research Service’s Jack Maskell.

So that settled, you should not question whether Ted Cruz is able to run for president for two reasons.

First, birtherism is just cowardly racism. If election officials determine someone is qualified, fine. Few questioned John McCain’s eligibility though he was born in Panama for one reason: skin tone. So playing tit-for-tat just justifies what was an entirely despicable, racist assault on Barack Obama (and continues on several non-white candidates including Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal).

Secondly, you should encourage Ted Cruz to run.

Let the junior senator from Texas explain why:

‘If Republicans do not do better in the Hispanic community,’ he said, ‘in a few short years Republicans will no longer be the majority party in our state.’ He ticked off some statistics: in 2004, George W. Bush won forty-four per cent of the Hispanic vote nationally; in 2008, John McCain won just thirty-one per cent. On Tuesday, Romney fared even worse.’In not too many years, Texas could switch from being all Republican to all Democrat,’ he said. ‘If that happens, no Republican will ever again win the White House. New York and California are for the foreseeable future unalterably Democrat. If Texas turns bright blue, the Electoral College math is simple. We won’t be talking about Ohio, we won’t be talking about Florida or Virginia, because it won’t matter. If Texas is bright blue, you can’t get to two-seventy electoral votes. The Republican Party would cease to exist. We would become like the Whig Party. Our kids and grandkids would study how this used to be a national political party. They had Conventions, they nominated Presidential candidates. They don’t exist anymore.’

Cruz feels that he can do better with Latinos than the rest of the GOP because he has a Cuban father and an Ivy Leaguer’s belief in his own abilities that’s backed up by almost no evidence. He did slightly better with Latinos than Romney at 35% but worse than Texas’ senior senator John Cornyn did in 2008.

Republicans like to believe Latinos are natural Republicans because they’re generally Catholics. But, as Rush Limbaugh likes to point out, Latinos are extremely opposed to the policies of the GOP and not just when it comes to immigration. Latinos are more pro-choice than the rest of the population, they embrace ObamaCare and believe in an activist government that improves the lives of workers.

Cruz is against a path to citizenship, wants to repeal ObamaCare and opposes abortion, unless the mother’s life is danger. He wants to remove regulation, weaken or eliminate the safety net and cut taxes on the richest who have done the best since the financial crisis. And he’s arrogant and prone to conspiracy theories, if they serve his corporate agenda.

And the fact that he thinks he can appeal to Latinos despite supporting policies they despise will possibly help him do worse with the fastest growing group of new voters than even Mitt Romney.

Basically, he has no chance of winning and will only push the GOP further to the right and closer to its grave. So, run, Ted. Run.

  • Howard Wachtel

    You progressive scumbags don’t care about facts, and never admit when you’re wrong. A person born in Canada (or elsewhere abroad) cannot run for president. McCain was eligible because at the time of his birth the Canal Zone was US territory. There are very, ver few “birthers” and most are not Republicans. Your accusation (shared by Chris Matthews and most other leftwing nutjobs) that anyone opposed to Obama’s policies does so because of skin color is itself racist. You are a party of hatemongers, and are in the process of destroying the U.S. G-d forbid you must not be allowed to succeed. By the way, why was Daniel Pearl murdered?

    • So entertaining…

    • Ethan Case

      Sorry, but as a Republican and adherent to the constitution, I must inform you that you are wrong.

      In fact, “Natural Born Citizen” was never actually defined well in the constitution, requiring us to defer to a variety of supreme court rulings and legal opinions over the last 200 years.

      George Romney, Mitt Romney’s father, for instance, was born in Mexico, but retained eligibility to be President because both of his parents were US citizens (missionaries in Mexico at the time). The issue of his birth did, in fact, come up during the primaries, and was put to rest.

      So yes, even if Obama was, in fact, born in Kenya, he was still a natural born citizen… meaning he didn’t have to come live in America for 7 years and take a test, or any of that nonsense. He was a citizen starting the day his mother informed the US government that he existed, which is what the law states, and is what the founders intended.

      • Dave B.

        President Obama is a US citizen because, and only because, he was born in the United States. That fact is perfectly adequate to settle the matter of his citizenship, which is affirmed by the 14th Amendment. But if President Obama had been born in Kenya, his citizenship at birth would’ve depended on Sec. 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which read, in relevant part,
        “(The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:)
        a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”
        As of August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham Obama, who was born on November 29, 1942, had not yet satisfied that requirement of prior physical presence; her son would not then have been born a US citizen.
        By the way, that’s the same statute by which Senator Cruz DID acquire US citizenship. It’s also the statute by which President Obama’s sister acquired US citizenship.
        A person acquires US citizenship at birth either by birth in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, which requires no statutory enactment (even though one is provided), or when the requirements of the applicable statute are perfectly met. US nationality law doesn’t state, anywhere, that his citizenship started “the day his mother informed the US government that he existed,” and includes no such requirement. Acquiring a Consular Report of Birth Abroad is one means of obtaining proof of US citizenship, and is by far the best course to be taken, but having or not having one doesn’t mean one will or will not be a US citizen.
        I have little doubt that the founders intended that a person who acquired US citizenship at birth, by whatever means, could be eligible for the Presidency. But they also intended to give Congress the power to impose conditions for the acquisition of US citizenship by any other means than birth in the United States; and when those conditions are not met, citizenship isn’t acquired. That’s been upheld time and again by the Supreme Court. They plainly did not intend to make persons who were not born citizens, outside the original citizens of the United States, eligible for the Presidency.
        Since the facts as they are settle the matter so conclusively, and any Kenyan birth scenario is so far outside the realm of plausibility to be downright absurd, why do people even bother trying to conjure up a non-existent eligilibity for a non-existent Kenyan-born Obama?
        Oh, and concerning George Romney– his parents weren’t in Mexico as missionaries any more than the Mormons living in Salt Lake City are there as missionaries; Gaskell Romney was a farmer and builder in Mexico, going about his ordinary life of raising a family and making a living. He’d been on missions to the United States and the UK. George Romney’s mother’s citizenship had nothing to do with his own; when he was born in 1907 only US citizen fathers could transmit citizenship to a child born outside the US. Here is the relevant portion of the law then in effect, Sec. 1993 of the Revised Statutes:
        “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

        • TruthandFreedom

          One must be NATURAL BORN, not just an American Citizen. However, even Barry himself on at least two times outright has stated that America was not his place of birth!

          • Dave B.

            Never as anything but a joke.

        • Dave B.

          Ooooh, natural law. See how that goes for you this time around, Tracy.

      • TruthandFreedom

        Yes, it was defined:
        US Constitution
        Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5
        Minor v. Happersett
        (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
        Perkins v. Elg,
        307 U.S. 325 (1939)

        Natural Born Citizen
        Both parents are U. S. Citizens AND Born in the U.S. (mainland)
        Obama or Barry or whatever his real name is says by his own admission his dad was not and never was an American Citizen!
        Hell, on at least two separate occasions, once in Turkey and another in the correspondents dinner Obama outright said America was NOT his place of birth!

        • Dave B.

          Those cases don’t support your claim.

    • Dave B.

      The Canal Zone was never considered either part of the United States or even an outlying possession of the United States. Persons born in the Canal Zone acquired US citizenship at birth only if they had a US citizen parent. And when Senator McCain was born in 1936, there was a considerable consensus within the US government that because of a deficiency in the existing law, NOBODY acquired US citizenship at birth in the Canal Zone, even with two US citizen parents. That deficiency was corrected, retroactively, by the Act of August 4, 1937 (50 Stat. 558), which remains in effect as 8 USC § 1403. That law recognizes and takes into account the fact that the Canal Zone was not part of the United States– alone of all places outside the United States, there was no requirement that a US citizen parent had been a resident of or physically present in the US or its outlying possessions in order to transmit US citizenship. The reason for that exception was to allow US citizens who were born in the Canal Zone, and never left the Canal Zone, to transmit citizenship to the children they would have there. Without such an exception, those children wouldn’t have acquired US citizenship at birth– because the Canal Zone wasn’t part of the United States.

    • MichHenn

      Hahah. I love parody accounts. You really sound like one of those psychotic teabaggers.

  • Pingback: Obama birthplace mistake: Yahoo! News declines comment()

  • Doc3

    The law at the time of Obama’s birth required that his mother be 19 at the time of his birth to confer citizenship. As she was about 6 months shy of that if Obama was not born on US soil he is not eligible.

  • Larry Kelly

    Wrong. Liar, thy name is Progessive.

  • nastyolbstrd

    I don’t care if Zero is is purple with pink polka dots. The SOBIC is not qualified to be a dog catcher let alone POTUS. This whole “RACISM” thing is BS. There is only ONE race. The HUMAN race. All these ism’s are a smoke screen and a bludgeon to prevent real conversation about the SOBIC’s agenda. The whole concept of “racism” is a left over of tribalistic thought processes. GROW UP Humanity! Zero is an opportunist seeking to use his skin color to further the progressive/collectivist agenda.

  • 7loubro_4

    The Yahoo! article is correct, the birth certificate is a forgery, and the Constitutional requirement is 2(TWO) American parents, and child born on US soil. Military base is granted American citizen status, but McCain was born in the national Panama hospital, not on the base, and thus was vetted into eligibility so that everyone would accept Obama’s fake Hawaiian forgery. He was also adopted by his stepfather and had Indonesian citizenship, attending university in America under his Indonesian papers and thus was not rehabilitated as an American NATUARL BORN CITIZEN. I did not make this up and 15 minutes worth of actual research could open a lot of eyes to the truth. However, it seems that truth is unwelcome in America if it shows what has been done to our leadership.

    • Ethan Case

      you may be correct about the two parent rule.

      however, if my girlfriend and I, both american citizens, had a child say, while on vacation in Paris, do you really think I’d need to secure a green card for my illegal alien child? No. My child would be a citizen from the moment he was born, because his parents were currently citizens. That is why both McCain and George Romney were considered natural born citizens of this country, even though neither were physically born here.

      Obama’s mother was a US citizen, his father was not. IF and that’s a big if, he was born in Kenya, then we’d have to find the relevant supreme court decision regarding parentage. I’d wager that one parent is enough (and if its not, it would get challenged, go to the SCOTUS, and be deemed that it is enough because we live in an era of single parents)

      So any way you slice it, Obama is eligible. Which means Cruz is too.

      • BushMaster63

        As much as everyone thrills in the belief that the Constitution is a living document, subject to modification and legal preference of current situations…it indeed is not…so dump this whole “he did it so it’s ok if we do it” crap. Both parents means exactly that…just like “illegal” means just that whether they term it as “undocumented” or whatever other term they choose.

        • E C

          except the constitution doesn’t define “natural born citizen” for that definition we have to look to supreme court decisions and regular laws passed by congress. I love a good strict constructionist argument when one is available, but the fact is you are mistaken in your belief that the definition of natural born citizen is enshrined somewhere in the constitution.

        • Dave B.

          “Both parents” may mean “exactly that,” but you won’t find anything about “Both parents” anywhere in the US Constituition.

      • Dave B.

        If you and your girlfriend had a child while vacationing in Paris, 8 USC § 1409 would apply; if your girlfriend had been physically present in the US or its outlying possessions for a period of one continuous year sometime prior to the birth, the child would’ve been born a US citizen. If not, you yourself would have to have, prior to the birth, physically present in the US or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. You would also had to have agreed in writing to provide financial support for the child until the child reaches the age of 18 years, and
        while the child is under the age of 18 years have the child legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
        acknowledge paternity of the child in writing under oath, or have the paternity of the child established by adjudication of a competent court.
        Those requirements HAVE been upheld by the Supreme Court.
        If you were married, all that would be required is that one of you had at some time before the birth been a resident of the US or one of its outlying possessions.
        US nationality law has always imposed conditions that must be met before US citizenship is transmitted to a child born outside the US; the Supreme Court has, time and again, recognized the power of Congress to impose such conditions. Under the conditions imposed by statute in 1961, the fictional Kenyan-born Obama wouldn’t have been born a US citizen. He would’ve been eligible for automatic naturalization upon naturalization of his alien father, or expeditious naturalization upon petition of his US citizen mother, but he wouldn’t have been a natural born citizen of the US.

      • TruthandFreedom

        wrong, your child at that point would be considered a having dual citizenship. I know this as my brother was born in Germany in 1966 to my Father (American) and mother (American) but since he was not born on an American Installation, he was a dual citizen. He had to be naturalized by the courts when my parents returned from Germany. This had to be proven before my brother was allowed to join the military!

    • Dave B.

      You may not have made that up, but whoever you got that mess from did. Down the line:
      No one who claims that “the birth certificate is a forgery” has ever even been in the same room with it. How goofy is that?
      There is no such thing as a “Constitutional requirement” of “2(TWO) American parents, and child born on US soil.”
      Birth on a US military base abroad is, for purposes of citizenship, indistinguishable from birth on the surrounding territory of the host country.
      All genuine evidence indicates that Senator McCain was indeed born within the Canal Zone, at Coco Solo. His citizenship at birth would have been less a matter of controversy if he’d been born outside the Canal Zone.
      President Obama didn’t acquire Indonesian citizenship. Whether he had or not had no effect on his US citizenship. The claim that he went to college “under his Indonesian papers” is based on an April Fools Day joke. There was no need for the President to be “rehabilitated as an American NATUARL BORN CITIZEN.”

      • TruthandFreedom

        You can’t be in the same room as the forged Birth Certificate because it is not real, not on paper…. It is only in computer land!

        • Dave B.

          That’s just silly.

  • 7loubro_4

    p.s. Ted Cruz is not eligible for the same reason: he does not have two (2) American parents, and was not born on a military base in Canada. I like him too, but if this trend is allowed to continue, we will never again have a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN American President. I am not a smart alecky high class professor, only a retired high school English teacher who can read and research pretty well. So can most Americans who spend some time checking people who make statements that do not agree with what one thinks is accurate, when the information has been skewed to an agenda. Mr. Obama is no more eligible to be POTUS than are Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, Schwarczanagger, or anyone else who does not fit the three (3) simple qualifications. However, he has been given a pass to avoid great disturbance in the national voting process. I rest my case on that last statement.

    • Mel V

      no where does the requirement address “two-US citizen” parents to be considered “natural born”. Interpretations have always defined it as natural born being “at birth” or “by birth”. Meaning, he could be born anywhere in the world so long as the parent is a US citizen. His Mother is (born in Delaware). We’ve already had a president not born in the US… Cleveland perhaps? It’s been sometime ago, but it’s a precedent anyway.

      • 7loubro_4

        Two American parents. Mother=1 American + Father=not American total=1 American parent.
        Ted Cruz, though I wish it were not so, is not eligible, though it may never matter again since Mr. Obama has got away with it. It is not a precedent to have non Natural Born Citizens to be eligible. The precedent is to follow Article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

        • Mel V

          The Constitution gives three eligibility requirements to be president: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen,” a term not defined in the Constitution (but yet you’re trying to define it as “two American parents”).

          That lack of precision has given rise to controversy and legal challenges, but has never resulted in a definitive determination by the U.S. Supreme Court.

          The Congressional Research Service report took note of a federal court decision by the Northern District of California, which said that John McCain would qualify as a citizen “at birth,” and thus would be considered a “natural born” citizen, since he was born outside the United States to citizen parents.

          But Cruz, by being entitled to citizenship at birth because his mother was a U.S. citizen and by being in the U.S. for more than 14 years, would seem to qualify as a “natural born citizen” under the definition in this same report.

          For someone who wishes “it were not so” you sure are trying hard to argue that he is NOT eligible. Trying hard for someone who is not a Constitutional scholar, that is.

          • 7loubro_4

            Did you read Article II section 4 of Constitution? I did, and it is very easy and clear English.

          • Mel V

            Why, yes… I do have a law degree. But you still fail to address my response and obviously missed my point about “natural born citizen” not being defined after clearly making my case. There have been precedents established that would allow for Cruz to be eligible based on his background. But please… continue on regurgitating those same talking points without addressing my rebuttal. LOL!

          • 7loubro_4

            You have no rebuttal. The facts are clear in the Article II Section 4. I am through repeating something that should be clear enough to one who will take the trouble to type those words into a search bar. I am through. LOL

          • Mel V

            Again, you fail to address my response! What are you, learning impaired? Oh yeah… retired teacher. Let me guess… Union? I weep for every single child who came through your classroom. You’re obviously an idiot spouting talking points you’ve read from the mind numbed robots at HuffPo. You’re out of your league, old bitch. Buh-bye.

          • 7loubro_4

            One more thing or two: I am no idiot, I am not a robot, I was AOL from the beginning of it, I am not a bitch, nor learning impaired. Nor am I accustomed to be slurred as you have done in a very low class manner. I have not called you names, nor will I. Texas(have the fit about that now) teachers voted NEA out and did not unionize when that was tried, in the 1980’s. My students were treated with respect and returned respect to me. I am old, you win that one. However, what exactly composes a bitch? I may well be, if it means that I will not simply accept a “response” which in on its merits, not valid. I see nothing to refute when I have the facts and stand on my belief. If Ted Cruz suddenly becomes eligible, it will be because Barack Obama has been given a pass, and we will never again have a Natural Born Citizen American President. One loophole does not necessarily legitimize another. PC has the reins now, and may forever. God bless you, Mel, as I am a Christian so I must treat you with respect, difficult though it is.

          • BushMaster63

            Don’t argue with a fool, lest you become like them…I’m with ya, and thanks for teaching when it meant something and wasn’t just a breeding ground for left wing and Islamic indoctrination as it’s becoming now.

          • 7loubro_4

            How about this, from the old bitch: get hosed, Mel V. No, I was not union and I have had some idiot friends very much in love with our country. Two American citizen parents will have an American Natural Born Citizen child. Is that too simple? Call me a name again, not even knowing anything about me is not a good way to win a decent debate. You can stop weeping now, as most of them are alive and well and probably about as intelligent as you.

          • Article Two, Section 4 of the U.S. Constituition:

            The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, or Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
            Article Two, Section 1:

            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.
            Not seeing any mention parental origin of birth in that.

          • 7loubro_4

            My bad, I was forgetting how much trouble was gone through to determine “natural born citizen” and should have just fallen back on Vattel. The loyalty of the father, the source of conferring citizenship, was determined to be the use that Founders intended, and that was why the obstructed themselves from the presidency, as they were still subjects of the crown. Later, some of the presidents were grandfathered in, after the final Constitution was established. I wish I could quickly name the list of all of the Presidents, their lineage, and how they qualified, but that is on another site. You are right, that the parental origin is not there. It does matter, that the father and mother both be native Americans also.

          • Dude, your entire argument just collapsed in a hilarious heap of tea party fail and you’re still acting like any of us will take you seriously. You need to stop now and cut your losses, Mr. U.S. Constitution Guy.

          • 7loubro_4

            Yep, you got me. Nailed me totally, except for the fact that I am not a “dude”. I am a 75 year old grandmother female named Lou Ellen. Not tea party. And I did see where several points of disagreement were not included in the hundreds of other arguments about the NBC definition. I went back to my Constitution book and read the referred article, and it was as you and MelV, said and without definition. However, did you look up the Vattel decision, or any of the arguments explaining Natural Born Citizen and the precedents for its use? That is where I rest my belief that the father’s nationality is the real root of the definition.

          • I call everyone “dude”.

          • Shai Hawkins

            Being female apparently doesn’t exclude you from sexism and misogyny in addition to a distinct reading impairment. I hope you’re enjoying your retirement. I know your school district breathed a sigh of relief when you left.

          • Dave B.

            There is no such thing as the “Vattel decision.”

          • Dave B.

            “Falling back on Vattel” is of no avail. Vattel wrote a book on philosophy, in French, and its English translations didn’t even use the term “natural born citizen” until after the Constitution was adopted. While his work was much admired, it has no relevance to the issue at hand.
            I can’t even begin to make sense of your claims about the Founders’ intentions– they considered themselves (those who had been born in the colonies which became the new nation) to be natural born citizens of the United States. And they included the original citizens clause in Article II for the specific purpose of making foreign-born citizens who had adhered to the American cause in the Revolution eligible for the Presidency.

          • I give up

            Go to The Obama File and read till your eyes hurt. There is truth there, if nowhere else. He was adopted by LoLo Soetero and thus an Indonesian. I am too tired to go on with this, as I began in 2006 with the Obama saga.

          • Dave B.

            You really should give up, then. You can read The Obama File til your eyes fall out and be none the wiser. The Weekly World News is at least as truthful and far more entertaining.
            Not that there’s any conclusive proof of any such adoption to begin with, but what difference would that make towards the President’s US citizenship? The United States protects the citizenship of its little children– it doesn’t let them renounce it, and doesn’t allow anybody else to do so on their behalf.

          • paulsimon

            Irrelevant to his US Natural Born status unless he renounced US citizenship and took Indonesian Citizenship.

          • 7loubro_4

            His adoption by Soetero made him an Indonesian and his mother never reapplied his American staus. In the Indonesian adoption, Barry was only a little boy and he could not go to school unless he was Indonesian.

          • paulsimon

            You were through before you started this stuff. Natural Born is not defined as you claim so…

          • BushMaster63

            The law degree admittance confirms much…your interpretation of law is to figure ways around it…not live within it…enuff said

          • Art Cannon

            I am not an attorney.

            Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

            From the Cornell Law school web site.

            “Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

            The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

            (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

            (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

            (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

            (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

            (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United
            States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any timeprior to the birth of such person;

            (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

            (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not
            less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the
            United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title
            22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

            (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

            (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

            (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard
            Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.”

          • 7loubro_4

            And sir, none of your items mentions that there are two American born parents, and no dual citizenships, as his non-citizen father and being born in Canada made him a naturalized citizen, as the natural born definition is a three legged stool that cannot stand merely by saying that his mother was an American citizen.

          • Art Cannon

            I believe it’s Article II section 1 paragraph 5.

            “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.”

          • 7loubro_4

            I neither surrender nor respond with insults as some do, but continue to hold with the “two native/natural born American citizen parents, and on American soil or possessions” as the three legged stool for NBC requirements for POTUS. I just think that our PRESIDENT should be as much fitting that definition as those commenting here do. I will also cite “divided loyalty” was on of the reasons that Benedict Arnold would not have qualified though he was among the first British leaders, and some of them were grandfathered in later or also would not have qualified. It is a complicated read, and I will locate it again. I like Cruz. He is great. I just can’t give up on the full American heritage.

          • paulsimon

            What is your evidence for your definition of Natural Born? Parentage seems to be irrelevant, the obvious meaning is “not naturalized” so simply born on US soil. There are various ways that the offspring of US Citizens who are abroad at the time of birth and at that point the parentage comes into play, but someone who is born on US soil is a Natural-born American.

          • 7loubro_4

            Benedict Arnold would have been President if he had not kept his British patronage and citizenship. That was on reason the Natural=American Born=Parents are American, but “Soil” has some exceptions, as mentioned in territories, etc.

          • Dave B.

            Oh he would have, would he?

          • Dave B.

            Mel V. listed Article II’s requirements quite comprehensively, and it doesn’t support your claim.

    • Jasper J Eagle

      The Govanator is not eligible , the other 3 you name Cruz, Jindel, and Rubio are under US law

    • Dave B.

      Sadly, you don’t research as well as you think you do. None of your claims are supported by fact.
      If Senator Cruz had been born on a US military base in Canada, or anywhere else in the world outside the US, it wouldn’t have been any different from being born on the surrounding territory of the host country.

    • paulsimon

      One does not need two American born parents to be “Natural Born”. The Supreme Court case where such was mentioned was a ruling on a different matter and did not establish that as a requirement. Foreign US military bases are considered US soil (as are the areas in Canadian airports where US Customs and Immigration have checkpoints, if someone was to be born there. As a person born in Hawaii, President Obama needs no more to be considered “Natural Born”. Rubio, Jindal are both US born and Cruz seems to be eligible if his birth was reported appropriately to US authorities at the time. Schwartzennegger is not eligible, he was born in Austria of Austrian parents. You seem a little confused as to the definition of “Natural Born” but you are not alone. In any case, Barak Obama is legitimately President.

  • Filip

    Heh… Going further to the right is what will save the GOP. Be careful of what you wish.

    • I hope and pray the GOP goes further to the right. “GOP Presidential nominee Rick Santorum” or “GOP Presidential nominee Herman Cain” or “GOP Presidential nominee Michele Bachmann” would be PERFECT!!!

      • paulsimon

        The time for leadershipp is NOW! Quayle/Bachmann 2016!

    • paulsimon

      Further to right? They’re already dancing the extremist dance. It may save the party in terms of giving it focus, but without stealing elections (which they are trying to do with voter suppression tactics such as caging and purging, limiting polling places in districts with high numbers of registered Democrats, limiting early and weekend and evening voting etc etc), extremist Conservative policies will not win them any nationwide elections. They have gerrymandered many districts so aggressively that they’ll win some elections with Far Right candidates, but the idea that the American people are waiting for a “real conservative” and would turn out for an extremist nominee is not borne out byt the facts.

  • Ethan Case

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”.

    • 7loubro_4

      You are very close, E.C. as the caveat to cap it is that BOTH parents must be natural born citizens.

  • Pingback: Obama birthplace mistake: Yahoo! News declines comment | Pakalert Press()

  • Pingback: Forbidden News » Obama birthplace mistake: Yahoo! News declines comment()

  • Pingback: Why progressives should love and possibly donate large amounts of money to Ted Cruz’s 2016 campaign | Eclectablog()

  • Pingback: How to enjoy Ted Cruz and Rand Paul destroying each other | Eclectablog()

  • Fartrell Cluggins

    I hope he gets far enough to be in the GOP debates. Comedy gold will ensue.

  • rat618

    Great round up all the Hispanics and then nominate one for President. Only in the bizarre world of the GOPTP.

  • Pingback: Ted Cruz admits that Obamacare is working | Eclectablog()

  • Doug T. Partier

    So if we oppose a Muslim illegal immigrant, raised by Communists and born in Kenya, this is code to mean that we must be racists? Idiot.

  • Robin

    He is NOT eligible to run let alone even think of being POTUS. If Texas is turning blue, it will turn blue with or without wacko bird Ted Cruz.

  • Sorry, Ted’s not eligible.

    The thirteen original states all adopted English Common Law for the decision of legal questions. Under ECL, only persons born in the realm were natural born subjects. Parliament, by statute, extended NBS status to certain offspring born across seas, in order to allow for the descent of hereditary titles and properties. But the 13 States did not adopt ESL, only ECL. So the meaning of “natural born” inherited in the country by that adoption was limited to persons born on the soil.

    By the way, in a bold strike against those who object to so called “anchor babies,” under ECL and under the law of this country resulting from the adoption of ECL, it DOES NOT MATTER what the citizenship of a child’s parents is, when a child is born here, they are a natural born citizen. The only exception would be children born here while their parents are serving in a diplomatic function for another country.

    Here are links to my blog posts explaining why Ted cannot qualify:

    As I’ve staked out this position, I have been treated like a heretic by birthers whose thinking is based on application of legal principles found in Emmerich Vattel’s The Law of Nations. Vattel describes citizenship and sets out principles of citizenship that require one to be born on the soil of the nation and to be the child of citizens to be a natural born citizen. Their dependence on Vattel is misguided: