Ted Cruz’s citizenship continues to be a topic of discussion in the 2016 race, and it seems its one issue in which the far-left and the far-right might agree.
At the heart of the issue is the definition of “natural born citizen.” While many consider that to mean that one must be born inside of the country in order to serve in the Oval Office, others claim that one is natural born if you have citizenship at birth. The latter theory is backed up somewhat by the nominations of both John McCain and George Romney, both of which were born outside of this country’s borders.
However, since neither man made it to the White House, no Supreme Court case has ever been brought forth that specifically tackled the issue. As such, both sides continue to wage a war of opinion.
You can find the interview on the next page:
CRUZ ALREADY KNEW HIS BID WAS NEVER A SERIOUS ONE WHEN HE ENTERED THIS RACE THAT SAME GOES FOR RUBIO.
The democrats started this by publishing the story on Cruz then they keep asking Trump about it, wish Trump would let it go.. he’s being used by the democrats….. the goverment obviously does not want Cruz as president , gave me something to think about, if democrats want Cruz out then I’m gonna go against them.
Now it’s OK for Obama or a Democrat .They never investigated him when there was question about his false birth certificate, but let them get a chance to cut a Republican the Idiots come out of the wood work.
Huuuuuuummmmmm …… have a son-of-b$%# as president now whose dad was a non citizen …..
We know obama was born in Kenya and any man who spends several million to conceal his records pretty much says it all.
There are three leading theories of how to interpret the Constitution today. One is textualism: the Constitution means what its words say. The historical context of the words is important when a modern plain meaning is not self-evident. A second theory, adopted by many liberals, relies on a “living Constitution”: the Constitution means what is most consistent with fundamental constitutional values as applied to present circumstances. The third theory, championed by many leading conservatives, is originalism: The Constitution means what ordinary people would have understood it to mean at the time it was ratified, which is 1788. Under the 3rd Cruz is not a natural born citizen. Since this has never been taken up by the supreme court – it may be up to the states convention – should we have one – to clarify this. Until then we will see how this latest law suit works out –
It does not define what “natural born” construes of. Since 1790, there have been Acts passed that further define what is required to be “natural born.” Below is a link that summarizes them, including the 1934 law that Cruz references.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/citizenship-children-birth-citizen-parents-acquisition.html
Shari Conklin –
Note that none of these laws address the requirement of just “being born in the USA.” That is an interpretation by the State Department, which this department (1) is not address in the Constitution since the Constitution defines thr government to be 3 equal branches…the State Department is in the so-called Administrative branch of government, (2) the State Department has no bearing under the Constitution, and (3) only the Judicial branch has the authority to determine Constitutionality of a law (Article 3 of the Constitution).
Obama Father a Kenyan hello