Is Ted Cruz eligible for President ?

Ted Cruz's Mother Was On Official List Of Canadian Citizens Eligible To Vote




For years, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) has been dogged by a backburner controversy about whether he is eligible to serve as President since he was born in Calgary, Alberta Canada in 1970. But since Cruz's mother was an American citizen, the place of his birth actually is irrelevant to his eligibility.

Yet Cruz's mother's name appears on a Canadian government document, obtained by TPM in 2013, that lists Canadian citizens eligible to vote in 1974.

TPM shared an electronic copy of the document with Sen. Cruz's office when it originally obtained the document in 2013. Cruz's then-communications director, Sean Rushton, emphasized that the document is not a record of people who actually voted in any election. He further pointed out that the document itself provides notice that “applications for corrections,” “deletions from,” and “additions to” the list may have been necessary.

"At least one other error is evident on its face: the name of Sen. Cruz’s father is misspelled," Rushton told TPM in his 2013 statement. "Regardless, Mrs. Cruz has never been a Canadian citizen, and she has never voted in any Canadian election."

TPM eventually decided not to publish an article based on the document at the time, in part because Cruz was not yet a candidate for president. TPM decided to revisit the story earlier this week as rival Donald Trump renewed his skepticism about Cruz's eligibility, moving the story to the center of the campaign, and was prepared to publish this evening.

Then late Friday afternoon, Breitbart.com published an article about the same document TPM had shared with Cruz's office in 2013, a voter list for the southern district of Calgary, alongside a lengthy, exclusive statement from the Cruz campaign.

Jason Johnson, Cruz's chief campaign strategist, said in the statement that candidate's mother "was never a citizen of Canada." He added that she could not have been a Canadian citizen at the time her son was born because of residency requirements. Eleanor Cruz was born in Delaware, while her ex-husband, Rafael Cruz, was born in Cuba, obtained Canadian citizenship while living in Calgary and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in the mid-2000s.

The document in question is a voter list of individuals who lived in the southern district of the city of Calgary, were over the age of 18 and were Canadian citizens, thus eligible to vote.

In accordance with the Canadian Election Act, such lists were compiled in the 1970s by a pair of officials, called enumerators, who went door-to-door together in an electoral district to ascertain the name, address and occupation of any person qualified to vote. The statute states that enumerators who “willfully and without reasonable excuse” added a name to the list “of any person who is not entitled to have his name entered thereon” forfeited pay for their services and were be subject to other punishments.

Another election official, called a returning officer, then reviewed the list. The statute states that the returning officer could not certify the document if he believed the list contained the name of any person who shouldn’t be included. The document obtained by TPM was certified in Calgary by a returning officer.

In 2013, a Canadian elections official told TPM that in the process of compiling the list, enumerators asked people to affirm that they were Canadian citizens.

"So when they knock on doors, they ask them: are you Canadian citizens, are you 18 years of age or older, and are you a resident in this facility and how long have you been living here?" Drew Westwater, the director of election operations and communications for Elections Alberta, told TPM. "If they meet all that criteria then they add them to the list, take their name and addresses and anyone else who's living there. And they ask, is anyone else living here a Canadian citizen 18 years of age or older? And if they are, then they take their names from them at the door. And that's the way it worked in those days."

The Raphael and Eleanor Cruz listed on the document clearly appear to be Cruz's parents. The spelling of Cruz’s father’s name is anglicized to “Raphael” rather than the correct spelling "Rafael" and his occupation is listed as self-employed; at the time, the Cruzes worked in the oil industry running a seismic data-processing business.

To confirm the Cruzes’ identity, TPM cross-referenced the address listed for the couple on the southern district voter list with Calgary city directories for the years 1971-1974.

Most of the directories listed the Cruzes as living at the northwest Calgary address where it's been reported that Ted Cruz was born. The address listed for the couple in the 1973 city directory matched the address on 1974 voter list and further listed both Cruzes as executives of the data-processing firm.

According to phone books from 1971, 1972 and 1973, Cruz's parents were the only individuals with the surname Cruz living in Calgary.

Johnson, the current Cruz strategist, pointed out in his statement to Breitbart that "the document itself does not purport to be a list of ‘registered Canadian voters.’"

"All this might conceivably establish is that this list of individuals (maybe) lived at the given addresses," he added. "It says nothing about who was a citizen eligible to vote.”

But that appears to conflict with what the statute said, what the Canadian election official told TPM, and the document itself, which is a list of people identified as Canadian citizens who were eligible to vote in federal elections.

This does not necessarily mean that Cruz's mother had in fact become a naturalized Canadian citizen. There are a number of plausible alternative explanations—the most obvious of which is simple human error. It is possible that there was simply a misunderstanding between the enumerators and one of the Cruzes. There is no other evidence that Eleanor Cruz ever became a Canadian citizen, and she and her son have consistently denied that she was one.

Even if it were proven that Eleanor Cruz had become a Canadian citizen, she might well have remained an American citizen. In other words, she could have remained a dual citizen. If that were the case, a reasonable interpretation of the constitutional requirement would still find Cruz eligible to serve as President.

Ted Cruz, who was a dual citizen, formally renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014.

Read the Cruz camp's full statement on the voter list over at Breitbart, and view the document below:
yki676xfsromufefxgz5.jpg

jsat8swsglnmhj3k4njj.jpg
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ted-cruz-mother-canadian-voter-list



Ted Cruz wasn't born in the US. His father was from Cuba so wether he is eligible or not depend on his mom. He claims she was American. Now if she was registered as a canadian in 1974, it could mean that none of Ted Cruz's parent were American citizens when he was born. This would mean he is not a natural-born american citizen an therefore he is not eligible for President of the United States.

Except for Trump, no Obama birther has yet claimed that Ted Cruz could be not eligible...

I think he is eligible. Just like Obama. But if you are one of those who think Obama wasn't eligible, then you should think the same about Ted Cruz. Otherwise, you're just an hypocrite who thinks claim people aren't eligible only when he doesn't like them...
 
Yes. So was Obama. American citizen mothers can give birth on the Moon and the child is a natural born citizen. You are coming a bit unhinged lately. Could it be you see the Trump or Cruz Presidency handwriting on the wall?

But dipshit nutjobs like you will cry otherwise. Like you know anything.
 
so if a black man who is a democrat is born in the united states runs for president there is a need for people to question it.

if a white man who is a republican is born outside of the united states, we're good to go.

there is a remarkable double standard. the republicans accepting him for possible nomination is absolutely laughable. even if president obama was born in kenya, which he wasnt, he would have the same eligibility as senator cruz. no questions asked of the senator, though. amazing.
 
so if a black man who is a democrat is born in the united states runs for president there is a need for people to question it.

if a white man who is a republican is born outside of the united states, we're good to go.

there is a remarkable double standard. the republicans accepting him for possible nomination is absolutely laughable. even if president obama was born in kenya, which he wasnt, he would have the same eligibility as senator cruz. no questions asked of the senator, though. amazing.

The birthers were dumb asses. Unless they could prove that Obama's mother wasn't a citizen while giving birth to Obama.

I was consistent in my criticism of them. Trump lead the charge against Obama when he should have been asking about his mother. The whole debate is stupid.
 
The birthers were dumb asses. Unless they could prove that Obama's mother wasn't a citizenwhile giving birth to Obama.

I was consistent in my criticism of them. Trump lead the charge against Obama when he should have been asking about his mother. The whole debate is stupid.

i agree with you. why is mr trump being given so much leniency now? should he not be pressed on this issue? he did a stupid thing. he did it very publicly. he was relentless. he should be ashamed. why is no one asking him about this?
 
According to Cruz's law professor, the issue is not settled. Tribe should know, ya know being that he's a constitutional law professor :)

There’s more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” despite his 1970 Canadian birth. Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is “settled” by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago. But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled, as the most careful scholarship on the question has concluded. Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump’s advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...oking-glass/zvKE6qpF31q2RsvPO9nGoK/story.html
 
He's a Canadian Anchor Baby.

But seriously I hate Ted Cruz, but up until last week I figured there was a 99% chance he was eligible to be US President. I did wonder if there was a subtle difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" and if there was, why it had not been brought up in the last six months? Then Trump did his passive-aggressive wondering bull3#!t and all of a sudden it's being talked about. I've heard or read about a half dozen Constitutional law experts state flat out it's NOT “settled law” but he probably is/will be. Tonight there was a top lawyer on Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell make a strong case that he is NOT eligible to be US President!
 
He's a Canadian Anchor Baby.

But seriously I hate Ted Cruz, but up until last week I figured there was a 99% chance he was eligible to be US President. I did wonder if there was a subtle difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" and if there was, why it had not been brought up in the last six months? Then Trump did his passive-aggressive wondering bull3#!t and all of a sudden it's being talked about. I've heard or read about a half dozen Constitutional law experts state flat out it's NOT “settled law” but he probably is/will be. Tonight there was a top lawyer on Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell make a strong case that he is NOT eligible to be US President!
It will never be heard by SCOTUS. A plaintiff will never be able to prove standing to sue. He's a natural born citizen by virtue of his mother a U.S. citizen giving birth to him and that can take place anywhere in the world.

Of this I am confident. Better find another issue to try and take Cruz down libs. This isn't it.
 
It will never be heard by SCOTUS. A plaintiff will never be able to prove standing to sue. He's a natural born citizen by virtue of his mother a U.S. citizen giving birth to him and that can take place anywhere in the world.

Of this I am confident. Better find another issue to try and take Cruz down libs. This isn't it.

Anything negative for Teddy is a positive for the US.
 
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/ted...d_law_professor_close_reads_the_constitution/

Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution

The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz's case squares with the actual meaning of "natural-born"
The argument that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president initially looked strong, then probable but uncertain. But closer examination shows it is surprisingly weak.

The constitutional text provides that a president, unlike other elected officials, must be a “natural born citizen.” This language could not mean anyone born a citizen or else the text would have simply stated “born citizen.” The word “natural” is a limiting qualifier that indicates only some persons who are born citizens qualify. Moreover, when the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant something not created by statute, as with natural rights or natural law, which instead were part of the common law.

At common law, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.

The argument for Cruz rests on some old statutes, namely English statutes enacted before the U.S. Constitution and U.S. statutes enacted just after. But neither turns out to be persuasive on closer examination.

The English statutes extended natural-born status to persons born abroad whose father was any English subject, rather than only a public official. Some argue that the constitutional framers meant to refer to this statutory redefinition of the term “natural born.” But that position contradicts the ordinary meaning that the word “natural” indicates a non-statutory meaning. Moreover, Prof. Mary McManamon offers convincing evidence that the Framers meant the common law meaning. James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage. In any event, Cruz’s father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born (again unlike McCain), so these English statutes do not help Cruz.

The U.S. statute in 1790 provided that “children of citizens of the United States” that are born abroad “shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” This has been thought the strongest evidence for Cruz’s position since so many 1790 congressmen had participated in the Constitutional Convention. However, this statute did not say these children were natural-born citizens. It instead carefully said they “shall be considered as” natural-born citizens, suggesting that Congress thought they were not natural-born citizens but should be treated as such. Indeed, there would have been no need to pass the statute if they were already understood to be natural-born citizens.

Further, when this Act was reconsidered in a few years, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.
 
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/ted...d_law_professor_close_reads_the_constitution/

Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution

The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz's case squares with the actual meaning of "natural-born"
The argument that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president initially looked strong, then probable but uncertain. But closer examination shows it is surprisingly weak.

The constitutional text provides that a president, unlike other elected officials, must be a “natural born citizen.” This language could not mean anyone born a citizen or else the text would have simply stated “born citizen.” The word “natural” is a limiting qualifier that indicates only some persons who are born citizens qualify. Moreover, when the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant something not created by statute, as with natural rights or natural law, which instead were part of the common law.

At common law, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.

The argument for Cruz rests on some old statutes, namely English statutes enacted before the U.S. Constitution and U.S. statutes enacted just after. But neither turns out to be persuasive on closer examination.

The English statutes extended natural-born status to persons born abroad whose father was any English subject, rather than only a public official. Some argue that the constitutional framers meant to refer to this statutory redefinition of the term “natural born.” But that position contradicts the ordinary meaning that the word “natural” indicates a non-statutory meaning. Moreover, Prof. Mary McManamon offers convincing evidence that the Framers meant the common law meaning. James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage. In any event, Cruz’s father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born (again unlike McCain), so these English statutes do not help Cruz.

The U.S. statute in 1790 provided that “children of citizens of the United States” that are born abroad “shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” This has been thought the strongest evidence for Cruz’s position since so many 1790 congressmen had participated in the Constitutional Convention. However, this statute did not say these children were natural-born citizens. It instead carefully said they “shall be considered as” natural-born citizens, suggesting that Congress thought they were not natural-born citizens but should be treated as such. Indeed, there would have been no need to pass the statute if they were already understood to be natural-born citizens.

Further, when this Act was reconsidered in a few years, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.
Not so fast...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429867/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizenship-eligibility-president
 

I read the article, researched the author (I'll try try not to hold the fact he was a clerk for Clarence Thomas against him;) he references several laws that might very well apply then makes a leap to a conclusion not covered by the facts. Based on what he cited about (or is it a boot;) English Common Law, Cruz being born in Canada might qualify him for British citizenship.

There's beginning to be a question of what him Mother did to gain Canadian citizenship. If she did it in a way that surrendered her US citizenship, everything else is moot. Oh what an irony it would be!
 
I read the article, researched the author (I'll try try not to hold the fact he was a clerk for Clarence Thomas against him;) he references several laws that might very well apply then makes a leap to a conclusion not covered by the facts. Based on what he cited about (or is it a boot;) English Common Law, Cruz being born in Canada might qualify him for British citizenship.

There's beginning to be a question of what him Mother did to gain Canadian citizenship. If she did it in a way that surrendered her US citizenship, everything else is moot. Oh what an irony it would be!
And every expert that says he isn't are coming from a liberal tilt. I think I will take the opinion of strict constructionists not libs like them or you.

Challenge it. He'll win.
 
Top