According to legal experts, any child born to an American mother or father, no matter where, is considered a US citizen. [More]But is that child considered a "natural born" US citizen?
This needs to be resolved now, not later. It would create a genuine crisis were this suit to be dismissed, but a stronger complaint financed by the Democrat war chest -- accompanied by enthusiastic media cheer-leading -- were to be filed at the most opportune time of their choosing.
Trying to duck things doesn't make them go away. It just sets the stage for a Streisand effect to incubate and grow.
It's on Constitutional expert lawyer Cruz to resolve this once and for all, so that there's no question and no danger. If he thinks it's a distraction now, think what it will become if he wins the nomination. Plus, this is bigger than him. This affects all of us. He owes it to everyone pinning their hopes on him, and donating their energy, time and money to get him elected.
And no, I'm not taking a "side" here on his eligibility. Not only don't I have time to wade through and try to validate all the conflicting arguments, but ultimately, it's going to be what some black robes rule, whether I personally think they're full of it or not.
6 comments:
I don't know who the "legal experts" cited here are, but Title 8 of the U.S. Code states that the U.S. citizen parent has to meet certain conditions of U.S. residence before citizenship can be derived by the child. (Cruz's mother apparently meets those requirements.)
The big question is whether a "derivative" U.S. citizen like Cruz is a "natural-born" citizen. Your common everyday natural-born citizen is a "native and citizen" of the United States. Cruz is a native of Canada and a citizen of the United States, but he became a U.S. citizen at birth. So which is more important?
I don't know, and more to the point,none of us know what the courts would ultimately say, which says to me it's best to find out if the eggs have cracks before we put them all in one basket.
Who cares anymore? Obama and the Demonrats have effectively obliterated that clause.
I care, for the reasons stated.
@Crotalus: Just because Obama and his ilk have (allegedly) rendered that clause null and void doesn't mean they won't delight in enforcing it against their ideological opponents.
"Rules for thee, not for me" and "Opposite-Day 'Progressivism'", remember?
I for one also think the question of Cruz's eligibility needs to be resolved as soon as possible. It won't do for him to become the nominee, only to be declared ineligible on or around, say, Monday, November 7. Don't think the courts don't have discretion on the timing of their "rulings", and don't think an activist judge won't use that discretion to his/her fullest advantage.
Perhaps I was cavalier with my answer, David. You're right; this needs to be determined, and the sooner the better. What I meant was that the Democrats have no business bringing this up against Cruz, because they quashed any questions on this with Obama. They essentially rendered the clause moot.
Post a Comment