Is Ted Cruz Eligible to be President? Yes He Is!

Ted Cruz onstage with Trevor Loudon via Breitbart [screenshot]
Ted Cruz onstage with Trevor Loudon via Breitbart [screenshot]
I’ve strained relationships with  some friends over this issue.Many people, desperate to prove President Obama was ineligible for the presidency, looked to the “natural born” argument in a futile attempt to remove the Marxist-in-Chief from office. I never supported this approach ( for several reasons), but I did appreciate the great work many of these people did exposing Obama’s very shady background.

When I came out in support of Texas Senator Ted Cruz for President two years ago, some of  these friends were offended. The logic was that while Ted Cruz was a good man, supporting him was akin to trashing the U.S. Constitution – as bad in their eyes as supporting the “usurper” Obama.

Some believe that Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for President of the United States due to the fact that he was born in Canada, even though his mother is a U.S. citizen.

My argument is simple.

Marco Rubio is eligible because while both his parents were non-citizens at his birth, he was born on U.S. soil, making him a citizen at birth – an “anchor baby.”

Ted Cruz is eligible because one parent was a U.S. citizen, which granted him automatic rights of citizenship, regardless of being born inside, or outside U.S. borders.

Barack Obama is eligible for exactly the same reason.

“Natural born” simply means being a U.S. citizen at birth, rather than becoming a “naturalized” citizen later in life.

As noted at USAToday by “two former top Justice Department lawyers:”

“Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution…”

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/…/ted-cruz-natural-born-cit…/

As noted at TownHall:

“But there are only two types of citizens under the law: Natural born Americans (from birth), and naturalized Americans, who undergo the legal process of becoming a US citizen. Cruz never experienced the latter proceedings because he didn’t need to; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, rendering Cruz an American citizen from the moment of his birth abroad.”

http://townhall.com/…/yes-ted-cruz-is-constitutionally-elig…

As noted at National Review:

“Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online.

http://www.nationalreview.com/…/cruz-birthers-eliana-johnson

Also at National Review:

“My conclusion would be that if you are a citizen as a consequence of your birth, that’s a natural-born citizen,” says Theodore Olson, the former Bush solicitor general who defended John McCain in a 2008 lawsuit alleging McCain was ineligible to be president.

http://townhall.com/…/obama_rubio_birthers_should…/page/full

This is perhaps the most compelling:

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

“The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.”

http://harvardlawreview.org/…/on-the-meaning-of-natural-bo…/

Here is the relevant Clause: Article 2, Section 1, Clause 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.”

Did the founding fathers really believe that any pregnant American woman who happens to be on holiday or business outside of America could be jeopardizing her child’s future chances of becoming the president of the United States?

For those who will not be swayed by the founding fathers likely intent or the numerous legal opinions by very credible scholars, I would opine that the onus is on you to present your case to the appropriate authorities.

The “Founding Fathers” wanted to ensure that any future U.S. President was loyal both to the country and the Constitution.

Is there any candidate in the race more committed to the Constitution, and more loyal to the country than Senator Cruz. I believe, that if the “Founding Fathers” were here today, most of them would be wearing Ted Cruz badges.
Share:

Author: Trevor

Related Articles

15 thoughts on “Is Ted Cruz Eligible to be President? Yes He Is!

    1. Levin has chosen to stay on the air as opposed to revealing the truth. He insults birthers rather than taking them head on. Cowardice in my opinion…

      Birthers have more than a leg to stand on when we present our case starting with the phony birth certifcate and forged Selective Service Card.

      Ever hear of Sheriff Arpaio?

  1. Cruz is not eligible. Every President and vice-President born after the ratification of the US Constitution were born to TWO citizen parents on US soil with the exception of Arthur who burned his records to hide his past and Obama.

    Apply Occams Razor and then read US Supreme Court decision Minor vs Happersett.

    The birth certificate is a blatant forgery.

    I appreciate your ardent toil but you might want to think about spending the rest of your days on the wrong side of history.

  2. The media and Congress protect 0bama and Cruz to protect themselves. At first it was fear of being called racist. Now it’s just plain fear of being complicit and treasonous.

    They are ALL complicit. They should be deathly afraid of Trump…

  3. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Langdon Cheves,February 1814:
    We observe.. that children have a natural attachment & right to enter
    into the society of which their fathers were members..being obliged to
    acknowledge the protection it has granted them[the fathers]But every
    man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion,
    may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society
    for which he was destined by his birth.

    Alexander Smyth,born Ireland,1765; died Wash,D. C.,1830-came to
    America in 1775,(Virginia)admitted to the bar 1789 Served in the U.S.
    Army & 6 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives 1820
    ” When we apply the term citizens to the inhabitants of States,it
    means those who are members of the political community.The civil law
    determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose
    father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but
    not a citizen,unless citizenship was conferred on him”

    US Congressman,abolitionist,”Fath­er of the 14th Amendment” John
    Bingham, confirms understanding & construction Framers used re
    birthright & jurisdiction House of Reps 3/9 1866
    I find no fault with the introductory clause which is simply
    declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that EVERY HUMAN
    BEING BORN within the jurisdiction of the United States OF PARENTS NOT
    OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY IS,in the language of your
    Constitution itself,A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

    House Judiciary Com.Chairman~James Wilson 1866
    “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects & citizens
    RECOGNIZED BY ALL NATIONS FOR A DEFINITION & that must lead us to the
    conclusion that every person born in the United States is a
    natural-born citizen of such States, EXCEPT that it may be that
    children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or reps of foreign
    Gov’ts are native born citizens of the U.S.
    Obama Sr-sojourner,personified,in the U.S.
    sojourn-reside temporarily

    This-from B.Obama.Jr’s own website;”Fight the Smears” He sanctions
    for wide-dissemination the following via “Factcheck[dot]org”:
    “..As a Kenyan native,Barack Obama Sr was a British subject whose
    citizenship status was GOVERNED by The British Nationality Act of
    1948.That same act GOVERNED the status of Obama Sr.s children.”

    British Nationality Act of 1948: a person born after the commencement
    of this Act shall be a citizen of the UK & Col BY DESCENT if his
    father is a citizen of at the time of the birth

    1. Zephaniah Swift “The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” 1795, “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in six books”

  4. “But[Emmerich] Vattel, perhaps the most accurate and approved of
    the writers on the laws of nations, preserves a mean between these
    different opinions.” Alexander Hamilton

    The Second Article of the Constitution of the United States, Section
    First,( i.e. ART II S 1) establishes this general proposition, that “the
    EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a PRESIDENT of the United States of America and THE EXECUTIVE IS CHARGED WITH THE EXECUTION OF all laws, THE
    LAW OF NATIONS, as well as the municipal law by which the former are
    recognized and adopted.”[caps added for emphasis]

    Alexander Hamilton 6/29/1793
    “Gazette of the United States published Philadelphia

    EMMERICH de VATTEL~ “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of
    Nature- Applied to the Conduct & Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” : §
    212. Citizens and natives:
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound
    to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they
    equally participate in its advantages. The natural-born, or native
    citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their
    fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth
    produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him..”

    Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281 (1796)
    Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States “were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and
    refinement.”

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
    Chief Justice JOHN MARSHALL:
    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP
    ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel]
    says, ‘…The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of
    parents who are citizens.’ ”

    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN- (signatory U.S. Constitution) His letter to Charles
    W.F. Dumas(1), Dec 1775
    “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations.
    (It) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress,
    now sitting…”

    JAMES DUANE, Mayor & Chief Judge of New York City, influential member of the Continental Congress & mentor to Alexander Hamilton August 1784:
    “THE GREAT VATTEL’s WORK(‘perspicacious & elegant’).. IS ENTITLED TO THE HIGHEST ADMIRATION!”

    ALEXANDER HAMILTON, described VATTEL as; “the most systematic of writers on the law of nations.”

  5. Nice try Trevor. You state they are eligible because they are citizens & nothing more? It’s natural born citizen. Why do the Prez & VP have an additional requirement from the rest of the gov’t employees?

    How do you look yourself in the mirror knowing that you are helping in the destruction of this country.

    It’s people like you who are either being paid or are being threatened to regurgitate these blatant lies. So which is it?

  6. Presidential Eligibility

    Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President .

    The Sad Thing is..

    Both Party’s know this…There both in on some deal to keep a “Rresident” in the White House ,..

    that can work outside the Constition..!

    This is… The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document’s ,By Both Sides of the Ile..!

    We ether stand with the Truth, Constitution,, and The Rule of Law,..

    Or the Constitution Means Nothing anymore..

    Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and HIS FATHER WAS NOT A CITIZEN OF THE USA until June 2005, long after young Cruz was an ADULT……

    Ted Cruz Is Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President; So Say’s the Supreme Court

    Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents –

    Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

    Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

    Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

    Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

    Let us Translate for you Mark…

    The Constitution is not rocket science.
    It was written for the common man to understand.

    Every child born on US SOIL is a US Citizen // but not all are “natural born citizens” …..One needs to be Born on US SOIL.!…and have “TWO CITIZEN PARENTS” at the time of Birth.

    A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature)

    …Blood & Soil.

    Allowing constitutionally ineligible candidates to debate will only give the false impression to the American people that such persons are constitutionally eligible to be elected President.

    This result is more damaging to the Constitution and the rule of law

    Article II Facts…………http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Attempts%20to%20Redefine%20or%20Amend%20Article%20II

  7. I disagree. If both parents are Natural born, i.e., Americans by birth, where born does not matter. The key is both. There is no way in the world Rubio is eligible. Both my parents were American, our heritage goes back to before 1700’s on both sides. I was born in a field hospital in France during the 1950’s. I am eligible, Rubio or Cruz is not. Note, my father was station in France with the US Army.

    Check out other contradicting views.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd688.htm

  8. Mr. Loudon,you have lost the respect I have had for you and your blog since 2008. I admired your attention to detail and your dedication to presenting the facts about Obama. I like Ted Cruz and where he stands on issues, but he is not a NATURAL BORN citizen and you know it. My family has been military for generations. I have been a military wife for 30+ years and you are trying to convince me to turn against the Constitution which my family has fought for. You disappoint me greatly. Who bought you out?

  9. Article II distinguishes between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.” Citizens were eligible for the presidency if they were a citizen as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution. After that time, it’s clear a citizen is not eligible.

    Since the Constitution distinguishes between a citizen and a NBC, a citizen and a NBC are not the same thing. In fact, Alexander Hamilton originally proposed that the requirement be “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Clearly, the NBC requirement was an addition. If it were understood to be the same as a mere citizen, it would not have been necessary to make the change that was in fact made.

  10. Trevor, I love your work and while I’m sure you’ll never read this, I’m hoping that just maybe I’m wrong on that. The fact is that while you quoted some nice sources to support your argument about Ted, chances are that SCOTUS will find you to be wrong. The top constitutional expert that this SCOTUS refers to more often than any other happens to be a conservative. His name is Rob Natelson and he lives in Colorado. He’s been cited in more SCOTUS decisions than any other expert. His view is that Cruz is ineligible but not for the reason you and other readers may assume. His view is that the definition of natural born is not as simple as you say. While many lawyers look to international law at the time of America’s founding as the basis by which our laws were designed, his view is that the founders looked to British law. And under British law the term natural born had to do with the father. The mother was not a consideration. The father had to be a U. S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth for the child to be considered natural born. Cruz’s mother was a citizen, but not his father.

    Natelson also believes that if Cruz were to get the nomination that at that point a lawsuit would be brought and it would go to SCOTUS who, he believes, would rule that Cruz is not natural born. In fact, even if Cruz gets too close the nomination it’s quite possible that the GOP leadership would bring such an action to try to stop him from being the nominee. The GOP leadership would rather give the election to the Democrats than to a conservative.

    I would suggest you get in touch with Mr. Natelson and learn more about what his views on this are as it may very well give you second thoughts about the viability of Cruz’s candidacy. Here’s his website: http://constitution.i2i.org/about/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.