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…”
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.”
As noted at National Review:
“Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online.
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.
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.”
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.