Mandeville, LA – You have to hand it to Theodore Rafael Cruz, the future Prime Minister of Canada and the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Mounted Police, he is a politico as slimy as a Nickelodeon, Kids Choice Awards winner. When asked about the controversy over his natural born citizenship credentials for the office of the Presidency, the alleged “Constitutional Originalist” bobbed and weaved, mocked originalists as “birthers” and then proceeded to flat-out lie but still, never answered the question. Cruz goes so far as a “constitutional conservative” to state that the eligibility clause of Article II, Section 2 is not an “important topic”, that should tell the humble republican all he/she needs to know about the bonafides of Cruz. Below is the transcript of the exchange with my comments and corrections inline.– Mike Church
CRUSADE Audio: Historian Kevin Gutzman Demolishes Cruz & “Conservatives” Argument That Cruz & Rubio Are Eligible For Presidency
CAVUTO: Senator Cruz. Now you are, of course, a strict constitutionalist. No one would doubt that. And, as you know, the U.A. Constitution says only natural born citizens are elgible for the office of President of the United States. Stop me if you heard this before. Now you were born, you were born in Canada to an American mother. so you were and are considered an American citizen. But that fellow next to you, Donald Trump–and others–have said being born in Canada means you are not natural born and that has raised questions about your eligibility. Do you want to try to close this topic once and for all tonight?
CRUZ: (Laughs) Well, Neil, i’m glad we’re focusing on the important topics of the evening.
So, YOUR eligibility for the office is not an important “topic” but Obama, straying “from the Constitution” is? Which Constitution is that, Ted, the one ratified in 1788 or the one that gives us a space bus and ObamaCare in 2014?
Back in September, my friend Donald said that he’d had his lawyers look at this from every which way, and there was no issue there. There was nothing to this “Birther” issue.
So people that have legitimate concerns about yet another perversion of the ratified constitution are now to be called names as though they’re Alex Jones groupies? Yeah, this guy is n originalist, sure he is.
Now since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed.
But the poll numbers have.
And I recognize, I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa. But the facts and the law here are really quite clear. Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen. If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen. That is why Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)36%, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president. If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen. That’s why George Romney, Mitt’s dad, was eligible to run for president, even though he was born in Mexico. At end of the day the legal issue is quite straightforward but I would note that the birther theories that Donald has relying on, some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79% would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified–and interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified.
No Senator, and it isn’t a “theory”, it is the Constitution as understood by those who had to ratify it under Article VII so it could become binding. This is point number 1: Article VII specifies that “conventions” be held in each state to ratify the Constitution. Why conventions and not the legislature or the governor or a ballot? So that the men who had to live under the law could be told, personally, WHAT each clause MEANT AT THE TIME. If you cannot admit this plain and historically proven fact, stop reading now and go mount your Cruz/Rubio/Marvin the Martian 2016 sign. Second point: NO ONE that is serious about this issue has said that a qualified candidate must have “two parents born on U.S. soil”. That is just a flat out lie. What we have said is that in 1788, mothers had no naming, voting or hereditary rights to pass on, only fathers i.e. paternal rights could be passed. This is as clear as “We The People” and is plain to see in the relied upon Blackstone Commentaries:
“The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other [i.e. his father]; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince.”
And what of Vattel’s Law of Nations (go ahead, Cruzzombie, click it).:
§ 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 natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
Ah, but Teddy had to falsely accentuate the mater qualification and thereby open up Donald Trump as being ineligible too because “his mother was born in Scotland”. That’s great to know but any Scotsman knows his kilt pattern and coat of arms comes from his father’s clan and English common law reflects that. And Blackstone does mention mothers and it destroys the Cruz argument and should embarrass the “constitutional lawyer” that made it:
“…that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England.”
Was Teddy’s daddy “in allegiance to the King” i.e. an American citizen at his birth? No? Think carefully Cruzzombies, THIS is your only exception to base your claim on. Answer=NO, by Cruz and his father’s own admission and very recent, 2005 act of naturalization. Case closed.
CRUZ: Because, because, Donald’s mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized. Now Donald– —
TRUMP: But I was born here.
CRUZ: On the issue of citizenship, Donald–
TRUMP: Big difference.
CRUZ: On issue of citizenship, Donald, I’m not going to use your mother’s birth against you.
TRUMP: Because it wouldn’t work.
CRUZ: You’re an American. As is everybody else on this stage. And I would suggest we focus on who’s best prepared to be commander-in-chief, because that’s the most important question facing the country.
Conclusion: Ted Cruz is a demagogic fraud, and an “originalist Constitution” heretic, Obama looks scholarly and honest next to him. His lack of respect and undignified treatment of those who have grave concerns that a future President may be another spawn of Barry Sotoero i.e President Obama, ineligible too under Vattel, Blackstone and the Constitution as ratified, should jaundice the “conservative” sash he preens about in. A more fitting sash would be “living, breathing Constitution, living, breathing and eligible”. If this is the best “conservatism can produce, please, how can we repeal the Constitution and beg U.K. to take us back, at least they know who their Kings can and cannot be.