Ted Cruz Decides to Run for President – Two Constitutional Wrongs don’t make his Presidential Aspirations Right for America.on Thursday, March 26, 2015
Are Ted Cruz Presidential Ambitions Right for America?
By Scott Rohter, March 2015
“Ambition is a tricky little animal to tame. It is very skillful at concealing itself from its master.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Just because the government makes something legal doesn’t make it right!” – Unknown
The law and the Constitution are two entirely different things. America’s sixth President, John Quincy Adams said that in the 18th Century. He said: “The law is an artificial human construct, quite arbitrary, and of absolutely no use anywhere else but in a court of law”… He also said,“The Constitution rests upon the good sense and the respect of the American people.”
Have Americans lost our good sense? Have we failed to exercise sound judgment? If that is true then our Constitution is resting on some pretty shaky ground. When our nation’s political leaders in Washington D.C. don’t respect the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers then the cornerstone of our representative democracy becomes of no significance in our political system and it would surely sound the death knell for our Constitutional Republic.
Consider this… Seven years after moving into the White House there are still serious questions regarding the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as the 44th President of the United States. Based upon the unconstitutional precedent he established in 2008 and 2012 a new young, Republican Senator from Texas named Ted Cruz is preparing to do the same thing… to make another unconstitutional run for the White House in 2016 and just like Barack Obama before him, Ted Cruz will challenge the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Ted Cruz is positioning himself to run for the White House in 2016, but who is encouraging him to do this?
Only inferences can be drawn about those who may have advised him to run for the Office of President.Ted Cruz supports fast-tracking the Trans Pacific Partnership which gives Barack Obama executive power that he does not have under the Constitution. This Bill contains a backdoor channel to flood America with illegal aliens similar to the process by which migrant workers are free to travel back and forth between and work in the various nations of the European Union. Apparently the brilliant lawyer who graduated cum laude from Harvard and Princeton has a lot to learn about the ins and outs of the Trans Pacific Partnership or he is shilling for the same corporate interests as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Ted Cruz has been positioning himself to be our 45th President ever since he arrived in Washington a little more than a year ago. The paint in his Senate office had barely dried before the junior Senator from Texas was putting himself in front of T.V. cameras and playing up to the conservative base of the Republican Party. Now he has just declared his intention to seek the Republican nomination for President. I think this is a bad idea and I want to be one of the first commentators to say why.
In a word his candidacy is going to be divisive. It will split conservative voters over the question of his eligibility to be the 45th President of the United States because Ted Cruz was not born in the United States. He is the son of a Cuban immigrant… a Cuban immigrant to Canada. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta. His candidacy will divide conservatives over the issue of his eligibility to be President and his campaign will further divide the conservative base of the Republican Party between, three or more candidates. The danger is that his campaign might allow Jeb Bush to actually win the Republican nomination. Ted Cruz’s desire to be America’s 45th President is un-constitutional and it is not in America’s best interests. That is why his presidential aspirations are not right for America. Two constitutional wrongs make a bad precedent, but they do not make something constitutionally right.
The principle architect of the United States Constitution is America’s fourth President James Madison. He said this: “Freedom has more often been lost in small steps by progressive incrementalism than it has been lost by catastrophic upheavals such as violence or war.” In other words our freedom is in greater danger from enemies within our country than it is from enemies without our country.
Ted Cruz makes a fine Senator. He should stay right where he is for now, in the United States Senate. That is where America needs him the most. I hope he becomes the next Majority Leader replacing Mitch McConnell, or maybe he could be the next appointment to the Supreme Court. He would make a fine Attorney General, but he is ineligible to be the next President of the United States because he is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. So why do some Republicans especially those from Texas keep pushing him for President? Is it because he is their favorite son or is it because of something else. I don’t know. If I lived in Texas I would vote for him a thousand times for U. S. Senator, but I will not vote for him, not even once for President of the United States even though I agree with virtually all of his positions on the issues. He is ineligible to be President. He is just as ineligible as Barack Obama is.
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution states that in order to be the President (of the United States) someone must be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. It does not actually mention the words “United States”, nevertheless it is implied. By the same token the Constitution doesn’t actually define what it means to be a Natural Born Citizen, but the people who were alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution knew what that meant, and people of reasonable intelligence who are alive today can arrive at reasonable conclusion about what it means. The problem is that there are not many reasonable people in politics today who want to know what it means. The Founding Fathers referred to Vattel’s treatise… THE LAW OF NATIONS in their writings. The Founding Fathers knew that a Natural Born Citizen was someone who was born in the United States and whose parents were American citizens… both parents.
In addition to being born in Canada, Ted Cruz’s parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth. His father was a Cuban immigrant to Canada as I have indicated and for these reasons Ted Cruz is not constitutionally eligible to be President. This is the same reason that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the 44th President of the United States. His father was not an American citizen.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, however without respect and adherence to the Constitution we will not remain one for much longer. Ted Cruz’ father became a naturalized American citizen in 2005 when Senator Cruz was already 35 years old, but between 1957 and 2005 Raphael Cruz was a Canadian citizen. Senator Cruz recently renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014 at the age of 44 in order satisfy concerns over his dual citizenship while he seeks the Republican nomination for President in 2016. My question is why did he wait so long to renounce his Canadian citizenship? It seems rather convenient and opportunistic to me.
You can change your citizenship on paper but you can’t change your actual place of birth. Ted Cruz will never be able to say that he was born in the United States. He will always be a natural born Canadian. He can be anything he wants to be in the United States except the President of the United States because he will always be a naturalized American citizen. It doesn’t matter what he did at the age of 44 when he finally renounced his dual Canadian citizenship in order to run for the Office of President of the United States. Those are the facts. I like to keep things plain and simple. Ted Cruz loved America so much that he waited until he was 44 years old to give up his Canadian citizenship. You cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of two countries, and two constitutional wrongs don’t make his presidential ambitions right for America. If Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be our President than so is Ted Cruz.
Supporters of Ted Cruz frequently argue that Harvard legal scholars say he is eligible to be President, but there are just as many scholars who say he is not eligible. Here is the proof that most members of the United States Senate know that a person seeking the Office of President must be born in the United States or on U.S. soil. They know if you were born in a foreign country than you are not in fact a Natural Born Citizen and you are not eligible to be President. The proof is found in a little known special act of Congress Senate Resolution S511 passed by Congress in 2008 which conferred upon John McCain (who was born in Panama City while his father was serving in the United States military in the Panama Canal Zone) all the rights of natural born citizenship so he could run for President without a challenge to his eligibility. If he didn’t need to be born in America in order to run for President than why did it take a special Act of Congress to make John McCain a legitimate Presidential contender in 2008? The proof that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be President is found in that special Senate resolution pertaining to John McCain… It proves that members of Congress know that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be the President because he was born in Canada. An interesting side note about this Senate Resolution which pertained to John McCain is that one of the principle sponsors of the bill is the current ineligible President, Barack Obama.
There has been a long standing argument in America about what it means to be a “Natural Born Citizen”. The phrase is used only once in the entire Constitution. It is used only when it comes to the qualifications for the Office of President. It is not used anywhere else in the Constitution. It is not mentioned when it comes to the qualifications to be a member of the House of Representatives or a member of the Senate. The phrase “Natural Born Citizen” is unique to the qualifications for the Office of the President. It should not be taken lightly the way the Democrats did in 2008 when they nominated Barack Obama and it should not be taken lightly the way some Republicans are willing to do now by supporting Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary. I define the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” in the strictest possible way as a matter of national security.
I can support Ted Cruz as a United States Senator but I cannot support him running for President and my position does not depend on which side is right or wrong in the 238 year old debate over the meaning of the phrase, “Natural Born Citizen”. It does not depend on Emerich de Vattel ‘s treatise The Law of Nations. I believe that the definition of a Natural Born Citizen falls into a gray area of constitutional law which may never be definitively settled as long as free people are allowed to think differently. The Supreme Court of the United States said as much in 1875 in a case called Minor v. Happersett. In their decision the Court issued the following opinion, “It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens the children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first class. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Since then the Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed which states that children born overseas to citizens of the United States become natural born citizens of the United States… Note is says “citizens” (plural… as in both parents). Then the Naturalization Act of 1795 was passed which repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790… In Section 3 of the Naturalization Act of 1795 it says the following….
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
Note: It still uses the word citizens (as in two parents) BUT IT CHANGES THE WORD USED TO DESCRIBE THE OFFSPRING OF SUCH PEOPLE BORN ABROAD FROM A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN TO JUST A CITIZEN….
Since the Minor v Happersett Supreme Court opinion in 1785 and the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 modern day lawyers have been working hard to undermine the original intent of the Constitution. Some Universities don’t even bother teach a course on Constitutional law anymore. In any case it would be correct to say that modern day law and those who practice it are no friends of the idea of Original Intent.. Chief among the transgressors are Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.
Just because the Democrats have played foot loose and fancy free with the Constitution in 2008 when they nominated Barack Obama doesn’t mean that the Republican Party should do the same thing with Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio in 2016. Just because the Democrats nominated someone whose father was not an American citizen doesn’t mean that the Republicans should do the same thing. It doesn’t mean they should nominate someone who was born in Canada. Two constitutional wrongs don’t make a constitutional right. The debate about Ted Cruz eligibility is not about his resume, his loyalty, or his conservative credentials. This is about the next foreign born citizen of the United States who wants to run for President whose brother could be the President of Iran or whose uncle could be the King of Saudi Arabia because we have opened the door wide enough for this to happen.
In light of the Obama Administration’s recent nuclear negotiations with Iran let me point out that there would be no legal way to prevent the Iranian born son of an American mother and the President of Iran… or the Saudi born son of an American mother and a royal Saudi prince from becoming the President of the United States unless we slam the door shut on anymore foreign born nationals or the children of foreign born nationals from ever becoming our President. If all it takes is just one American parent to be the President of the United States then something like that is going to happen. We have never been more at risk than we are now. It’s too late to do anything about Barack Obama, but we can stop America’s slide down the slippery slope by preventing Ted Cruz from becoming President.
Consider this: The wife of former King Hussein of Jordan is Queen Noor. She is an American by birth… If Barack Obama and Ted Cruz are both eligible to be President, and if all it takes to be President of the United States is just one American parent then by what legal means could you prevent any of Queen Noor’s four Jordanian born children from running for President if they wanted to?
It is quite simple. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and his father was Cuban-Canadian. Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and neither is Barack Obama. We must stop interpreting the Constitution liberally and start interpreting it literally, the way that it was intended to be understood when it was written. A Natural Born Citizen is someone who was born in America to American parents (plural). That is what Vattel said in The Law of Nations. That is what the Founding Fathers understood it to mean. That is what the early Supreme Court ruled in the Minor v Happersett decision in 1875, and that is precisely what it means today.
I have heard the argument that anyone who doesn’t support Ted Cruz for President is buying into a liberal’s agenda. That is not true. On the contrary the progressives in the Republican Party are actually very happy that Ted Cruz has thrown his political hat in the ring because his candidacy will divide conservatives over the issue of his eligibility and it will further split the conservative vote this ensuring that no conservative candidate will get a majority of votes to be nominated. Thus it could pave the way for Jeb Bush to win the Republican nomination in a brokered convention. Ted Cruz’s campaign for the Republican nomination might prove to be the divisive wedge that allows Jeb Bush to win in spite of his poor overall performance in the polls. Even if Cruz never says a single bad word about any of the other candidates in the race his bid to be President is going to be divisive.
Anyone whose constitutional eligibility is questionable under Article II Section 1 should not seek the highest office in the land nor trouble the country the way that Barack Obama did in the last two elections. It will only reinforce the bad precedent of disregarding the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers. I prefer to err on the side of safety when rightly dividing something as important as the qualifications for the Office of President. Modern day law and lawyers are also no friends of the Constitution or of the idea of Original Intent. Most legal decisions concerning the Constitution have only sought to water down the original intent of the Founding Fathers. As proof of this simply consider the direct taxation of individuals by the Federal Government, the direct election of Senators, the creation of the Federal Reserve Board, the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act which are all violations of the Constitution… yet they are all the law of the land and they have all been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. When descending down a slippery slope it is wise to chose one’s steps carefully.
If someone wants to be the President so bad that he is willing to put the Nation and the Constitution through another test like the one that Barack Obama put us through twice in the last two Presidential elections than he is not worthy of holding that office no matter how conservative he is… A love and respect for the Constitution is of the utmost importance to me when I make my next choice for President in 2016.
If you enjoyed reading this article please let me know by clicking the LIKE Button below. Thank You
Corroborating Source Material