Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Be President?

In a debate hosted by the Harvard Federalist Society on February 5, 2016, Professor Laurence Tribe argued that, under Senator Ted Cruz’s own view of the Constitution, he is not eligible to serve as President. Professor Jack Balkin of Yale Law School responded.

[thehillbillygamer]

Yes but what these learned men did not know what the time that Ted Cruz's mother was a Canadian citizen she was a registered voter and Alberta this has been proven

[americansunlight]

Its remarkable that Professor Jack Balkin, for all of his arguments, fails to cite the fact that the language was changed from the 1st draft -- "born a citizen" to its final draft "Natural Born Citizen".

Now ask yourself - why would the founders change this term IF their intention was in fact "born a citizen".

[MrPatwaa]

Patwa, Scotland  Churchill knew he could not stand for President, he had an American, mother but was a natural-born English man, had he been born in the USA as he said when he addressed Congress during the war, his personal history may have been very different, he was aworld class statesman he had deep understanding of politics and history, unlike Cruz he was not acarpet bagger selling snake oil at the same time holding a Bible in his left hand.

[thehillbillygamer]

The Constitution of the United States is a sacred document that should not be changed and we should enforce the laws the way they was originally written and the original meaning

[americansunlight]

as i state below Jack Balking says we must review 14th amendment to derive the meaning. However he fails to tell you that the author of the 14th amendment John Bingham gave us the definition of Natural Born Citizen within congress and it is infact on the congressional record. He either is intentionally not telling you this or he does not know the definition exists.

[quincyjones]

How can LYIN TEDDY be considered a viable candidate?

[DCUPtoejuice]

Isn't a bit lame and cowardly for Tribe to use the argument that Cruz is inconsistent to try to tackle the supposed question which seemingly is just a pretense for exposing said shortcomings in Cruz's positions.

[jlee]

I could listen to Professor Tribe speak all day long. His counterpart, not so much.

[sarge]

No he is not eligible. He was not born on U.S. soil and he was not born to 2 U.S. citizen parents. He has never shown us anything to even he a citizen at all. That thing he tells about dual citizenship is a lie because that was illegal in Canada when he was born, If he never got a CRBA, he is not even a U.S. citizen.

[FawnMeadows]

It's in the Constitution, and it's knowing the meaning of citizenship. Congress can not address Naturalized-Citizens to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Only Nun-Naturlized Citizens belong to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. A subject Citizen is a citizen born outside of the United States of America. A Naturalized-Citizen is the only one who can run for president. The president has to be born from two Naturalized-Citizens who were also born in the United States of America as Naturalized-Citizens who lived in the United States of America to qualify for the president. Just like when he inherited his eye color as in his father's name. The man is the one, as in Mr. and Mrs. And the woman uses his name. This was to protect America from delegates who would like to take over America and remove Naturalized-Citizens from the Constitution. Remember, Naturlized citizens' rights come from God and are protected by that Constitution. Nun-Naturlized Citizens belong to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and can not be addressed as Naturalized-Citizens to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Marriage has nothing to do with it unless one is not born in the United States of America. Stop the BS. If both parents are not Naturalized-Citizens in the United States of America, then you are not a Naturalized-Citizen, period. Naturalized citizens' rights come from God and the Ten commandments for a stable society.

[pjluckyman]

Many statements that Balkin made are typical lawyer slight of hand. Historical documents and texts say that a child born abroad are not eligible to be President from the first book on the Constitution for use by students to the text book the USCIS used in 1988 to teach from.

The term natural born citizen was defined in 1758 by Vattel a book that was required reading from 1779-1891 at William an Mary and required reading at UVA as required by Thomas Jefferson himself.

The term natural does not mean automatic it means by nature. If you break down the term in to todays terms you will find that it means, by nature alone, by birth a member of society.

Natural: by nature not by man
Born: BY birth
Citizen: Member of Society.

By nature Rafael was a citizen of Canada by his fathers citizenship and his birth location. By LAW his mother was allowed to pass presumptive citizenship to him if he or his parents acted upon that available citizenship and if she meet the requirements to pass that citizenship to him.

He makes the inference that natural born subject and citizen were one in the same and that british common law would be the influence but historical text books say that our citizenship understanding in the Constitution come from bk 1 Ch 19 section 212 and our naturalization laws come from 214 of Vattel and were taught that way at UVA.

Professor Balkin says that natural born citizens do not need to fill out any paperwork but at this point has not made mention that to acquire LEGAL proof of that ciitzenship Rafael or his parents were required to apply for one of several documents that could be used as proof of his citizenship, and to date Rafael has failed to provide any of those documents.

I can say with certainty that if he were to walk in to an AF recruiter today he would be turned away and would not be allowed to enlist with any of the documents that he has presented if he wanted to enlist as a U.S. citizen born abroad to a citizen.

[DCUPtoejuice]

and that is why the word natural should be removed from all use. In all uses it solely appeals to an individual's preference for its meaning without any intrinsic meaning. It is a great sales word. Also up for removal, the word should.

[teachingmyself]

I'd like to present a harder question that fundamentally has the same problem and solution as all of our laws. You will have to think about this to get the coloration. Is the constitution constitutional? <-- Have fun trying to answer or even deciding who should have the burden of proof in deciding if it is.

[oildance]

What a bunch of bull! It isn't this complicated.

[commonman]

Excellent Discussion... It does leave one with SEVERAL POINTS To Think about and Research... HOWEVER Personally? My Opinion is... I DON'T GIVE A SQUAT About The British Parliament's Interpretation of Natural Born... As far as I'm concerned? It's only Moot... But holds NO MERIT Here in America...

My only concern is what was written and put into CONSTITUTIONAL LAW In or After 1787... I'm QUITE ADMIT ABOUT THAT... And? Refuse to be swayed...

[Factoryseconds]

Ilya Somin... Georgetown law professor? You mean George Mason/Scalia?

[luisfrenzell]

"As an unapologetic living constitutionalist"?? maybe tomorrow the "Living Constitution" will get out of bed and will say: I kind of feel like Ted could run for president today. Unbelievable.