15 votes

Cruz Says He Is Eligible to Run for President

Thanks to ctkelly85 for pointing this video out in a comment. I thought it deserved a thread of its own.

Go to the 1 minute, 25 sec mark.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No one will like this

No one will like this suggestion, however I think if there is to be any way forward on this issue, Congress will have to amend the Constitution to legally define what "natural born" means.


Dual Israel-American

Dual Israel-American citizenship Legislators should renounce their duel citizenship too. You can't be trusted if you work for another country.

egapele's picture

You can get the real story

over at the dailycruz.com.

Or not.

Cruz says he is eligible -

who is going to tell him he is not - who decides who gets to run and who does not? I'd like to know.

Turns out HE IS IN FACT a Canadian citizen...

Strangely enough, he still thinks he can run for president! Not unless the Constitution is changed, Ted.


"Cruz, a Texas Republican who has fueled speculation that he may run for president in 2016, was born in Canada, which automatically makes him a citizen. On Monday he offered to renounce that citizenship."

Renouncing one's Canadian citizenship does not meet the "natural born" sniff test...

Where do you draw the line?

For example, I know someone who would make a great candidate.

He has lived a pretty normal life and plays ball like the rest of us. He was born in the US, and both of his parents were born here as well.

Thing is, he's my dog. He's registered...which is more than you can say for Obama whose fake birth certificate is pretty much documented....see www.wnd.com....


Cyril's picture

I would even argue that, these days, liberty is so desperate...

I would even argue that, these days, liberty is so desperate to be given a chance again some day, that she doesn't fear to support dead men standing for her :

Henry David Thoreau 2016 (?)


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I understand the Obama birther movement

But the Ted Cruz one is just a waste of time...
"With this knowledge combined, You can Troll The Planet!"
- Captain Planet Paraphrased

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

Actually, I see it as the

Actually, I see it as the reverse. American mother, Cuban father, baby born in Canada. That baby was born Canadian. You are a citizen of the country in which you are born.

After Obama, I guess literally anyone is

Name One country where an Anchor baby can go on to be president

or Prime Minister Or king or whatever. Name ONE country where a child born on some other foreign soil(other than the children of Ambassadors) can go on to be President (or the like) of that country?

No country is the correct answer. Ya think there just may be a very good reason why? I mean come on! This is common sense.

Why are people trying to make it easier for foreign interests to slip into the US Presidency? The requirement in the constitution is there for a reason. It is there to protect us. It is there to protect our Republic.

If we can't even agree on the basics....what hope have we?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question

I must be misunderstanding your question, so:

Australia had Julia Gillard as Prime Minister until just recently. She was born Wales in 1961, her family migrated to Australia in 1966, they became Australian citizens in 1974. She had dual citizenship from then until 1998 when she renounced her British citizenship.

I'm hesitant to dig further because this is obviously not the sort of thing you have in mind when you say 'no country," but I can't figure out what it is you might mean.

EDIT to add:

Here's more to explain why your "no country" is puzzling.

Argentina: "born in the Argentine territory, or to be the son of a native born citizen if born in a foreign country"

Germany: citizen, eligible to vote

Mexico: the president must be "Mexican by birth" ("mexicano por nacimiento") but Article 30 of the constitution explains "mexican by birth" to include individuals born abroad of Mexican parent(s).

And there are others that don't mention place of birth at all.

you really need to stop using wikipedia as a source

It is not reliable and you can't just believe it out of hand. I've gotten bad info from there before.

If you want to dig up actual documents, then I'll take a look.


The best you can come up with is that wikipedia might be simultaneously wrong about all those things? You want me to provide links to other documents, so that you don't have to go to the wikipedia article and click on the links to external sources provided there? Dude, seriously.

The fact that Julia Gillard was Prime Minister until just recently, and was a naturalised Australian citizen, is hardly difficult to verify.

The Argentenian constitution is available on-line here: http://www.senado.gov.ar/deInteresEnglish or start here http://www.senado.gov.ar/ if the direct link doesn't work. Section 89, "To be elected President or Vice-President of the Nation it is necessary to have been born in the Argentine territory, or to be the son of a native born citizen if born in a foreign country;"

The Mexican constitution is on-line. Article 82, the president must be Mexican "by birth" (por nacimiento), Article 30 for the definition of "by birth" which is even less restrictive than Argentina.

German constitution. http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm Section V (Federal President) Article 54, "Any German who is entitled to vote in Bundestag elections and has attained the age of forty may be elected."

In fact I didn't find any country where the requirement was spelled out the way you are suggesting, namely requiring not just citizenship by birth but also by birth on native soil. That doesn't mean there isn't one. Some, like Mexico, require citizenship by birth, but explicitly say what Vattel said that it's not the place of birth that matters, but rather the citizenship of the parent(s). I tracked down a number of others that said "by birth" or similar, and where I could find a definition it always included the possibility of being born outside the country to citizen parents. For some I didn't find a definition, though, or didn't look hard, so there might be a country out there that does what you suggested all countries do. But clearly, unless you meant something different, your claim of "no country" is not even close to being true.

Wikipedia aggregates the

Wikipedia aggregates the sources at the bottom of their page. Its actually very reliable. For example, the wiki page about Julia sites over 200 sources, hard to find something like that anywhere else on the web.

Sure, you can use it as a jumping off point

But I wouldn't take the summaries as correct. You can read through the page and then use the info to investigate further. It's always better to actually go to the source rather than rely on someones distilled and possibly cherry picked version.

The sources are all there in

The sources are all there in plain English.

I'd go with the "tight" reading...

Given the power of the presidency and the opportunity for mischief, I'd want the tightest restrictions on eligibility, regardless of legal nuances to loosen them up.
There should be NO conflict of interest.

Anything other than 2 citizen parents and born in US

makes no sense for a definition of natural born citizen. Aside from the well known definition of the time consider the other parts of the eligibility that make it pretty clear what they were defining.

1. Why would they include language that would grandfather themselves to be eligible if it was anything other than 2 parents and born in the US?

2. The 14 years in country requirement. Shows they really detested any foreign influence. So why would they allow anyone with a non-citizen parent become President? Or not be born here?

Clearly, from all what was written and able to be referenced at the time the term natural born citizen means 2 citizen parents at birth AND born in the US. Nothing else makes any sense at all except to twist the definition to undermine the constitution.

And Nixon said

" I am not a crook"

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

Well, if that's what he says,,,

It must be true


The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

Here's the breakdown

2 US citizen parents, child born in US territory = NBC (natural born citizen) child

1 US citizen parent, 1 non-US citizen parent, child born in US territory = NBC (natural born citizen) child

2 non-US citizen parents, child born in US territory = NBC (natural born citizen) child

2 US citizen parents, child born outside US territory = According to current legal interpretation, this child is still an NBC, even though it seems counterintuitive

1 US citizen parent, 1 non-US citizen parent, child born outside US territory = Not NBC child

***Critical factor is 2 US citizen parents outside US territory for the child to be legally considered an NBC.

Cyril's picture

No idea why you got down voted despite your honorable effort

No idea why you got down voted despite your honorable effort to try to put it together, from laws already perverted and inconsistent texts open to anyone's guess (hence the law perversion, btw, Q.E.D).

I can speak for #2 and confirm, being a non-citizen, while one of my son is a US citizen, thus, was born and naturalized on US soil.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Because that makes him a

Because that makes him a naturalized citizen born and raised for 7 years in Canada as a Canadian citizen. Dual citizenship is surely not acceptable for eligibility.

Cyril's picture

Okay, I get it.

Okay, I get it.

If I were a naturally born citizen of this country, I'd probably care about requiring at least 1 naturally born citizen parent and the child be born on the nation's soil as well. I'd vote in that direction certainly, if asked and if I could. Won't be for tomorrow, anyway.

But then again, laws mean nothing when corrupt lawmakers are in charge of writing them or to interpret them.

AFAIC, I do agree with the camp that says, there, "Sorry, Ted."

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Only #1 and #2 could even be considered.

And #2 might not fit the bill depending on what the People understood at the time they adopted the Constitution (1789) as to what the phrase meant. (both parents, or just one, and if just one, was there a distinction between it being the father or mother)

#3 is right out - that is the definition of American National - such a child is not a citizen by natural birth, though the law might provide for naturalization, we know these as "anchor babies." The Framers were in this class and specifically had to exempt themsevles from the requirement in the Constitution. If they knew this class wasn't "natural born citizens" then it still isn't today. (barring a new amendment to the Constitution)

#4 is patently false - the parents must APPLY for citizenship for their child. If they are both citizens and certain other conditions are met (such as being born on U.S. territory like a military base) then the citizenship is by law gratned automatically. But that does not make it "natural." By definition, if an Act of Congress is what gives you citizenship, then you are NOT a "natural born citizen." Citizenship may be possible if born on non-U.S. territory but is rarely automatic, but regardless, is not and cannot be, "natural born citizenship."

#5 true, this child is not a natural born citizen though the parent(s) could apply for naturalization.

Put more simply, "natural born citizen" cannot be determined by an Act of Congress. Anyone who's citizenship depends on such an Act is by definition NOT a citizen by the nature of their birth, but by an Act of Congress - they are 'naturalized.'

Sorry, but the law simply

Sorry, but the law simply isn't that clear. I derived my "breakdown" based on one interpretation. This is not a settled matter.


"According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. The text of the Constitution does not define what is meant by natural born: in particular it does not specify whether there is any distinction to be made between persons whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis (parentage) and those whose citizenship is based on jus soli (birthplace). As a result, controversies have arisen over the eligibility of a number of candidates for the office."

I defy you to produce the definitive law, not some legal scholar's interpretation, that settles the matter. You cannot do it.

There is no definitive law and there cannot be one save another

amendment to the Constitution.

All we can go by, per long held SCOTUS rules of construction, is whatever the term commonly meant to the People when they ratified the language in question - in this case 1789.

The only references anyone has ever found on the subject all speak of BOTH parentage and birthplace, Vattel being the most cited. (I've heard there are others, but I don't know what they are)

We can also look to the writings of the Framers on the subject, and perhaps if there are any letters or news articles/pamphlets on the issue from that period, we can look to those as well for a clearer picture.

This is exactly what the Supreme Court would do if they are tasked with settling the question short of an amendment. It isn't really that difficult of a task and I'm not sure why so many people have such a problem with this method.

Trying to use CURRENT definitions of citizenship is entirely right out. They do not apply in the least.

Trying to use Acts of Congress is positively a non-starter - any such laws were passed under the authority to "establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Congress has no authority to define, or redefine natural birth citizenship - the States retained that power.

Prior to 1789, as far as I know, no State passed any citizenip laws on the question, all simply used common law for settling cases, which brings us back to jurisprudence that relies heavily on Vattel.

Therefore, unless we pass another amendment as a clarification of the term, we are stuck with whatever meaning wins out in court. If we look to how the SCOTUS decides such issues, if they hold true to their own rules, then we should reasonably expect they would rule BOTH parentage and birthplace are required and on the question of parentage, they would be hard pressed to rely SOLELY on the mother's citizenship since we never have been a matriarchal society (and certainly we were not in 1789).

That renders only one answer - Obama and Cruz are not eligible.

nope you are stating facts for citizenship

any of which would qualify a man to run for senator or congressman

The only job requiring a Natural Born status is the Presidency and the vice Presidency. It is a special requirement distinguished from all other government jobs.

It was put in place for national security reasons to preventing foreign influence on the United States presidency. You can read the letter John Jay wrote to George Washington during the Continental Congress if you want to see the importance of the Natural Born qualification.

Vattel which was widely used as a reference by our founding fathers simply stated that:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

This is not an either or. It requires both conditions to be Natural Born. All others may be citizens but not Natural Born Citizens. It goes to the duel (or multiple) citizenship's possibly effecting the loyalty and thus decisions of the President.

As a defining document, the

As a defining document, the Constitution is not clear on this matter. "Natural born citizen" should have had a legal definition. Without that legal definition, it is open to interpretation, even if the Law of Nations was referenced as a template without citation.

Evidence a "natural born" could be born outside the US...The Naturalization Act of 1790:

"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". (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S., ed. Bioren & Duane (1815) 82 at 83.) This act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not mention the phrase natural born citizen."


Also, you are typing it with caps ("Natural Born"), when in fact it is "natural born" (lowercase). This is a legal distinction. Uppercase is used to define something such as when one writes a contract. For example: "The East India Trading Company, ("Company") will perform the duties proscribed..."

The fact that the Constitution spells it "natural born Citizen" (uppercase 'Citizen', which IS defined and lowercase 'natural born', which ISN'T defined).

EDIT: I see that the Naturalization Act of 1795 superseded the Naturalization Act of 1790, and it had no reference to "natural born Citizen" (or "...citizen...", lowercase).