General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswe have another birther... McCain: Cruz's presidential eligibility a 'legitimate question'
McCain says it's "worth looking into" whether Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president, since the Texas senator was born in Canada.
In an interview on Phoenix CBS affiliate KFYI, McCain said the questions raised by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump over Cruz's eligibility are legitimate.
"I think there is a question. I'm not a constitutional scholar on that, but I think it's worth looking into. I don't think it's illegitimate to look into it," McCain said.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/ted-cruz-birthplace-john-mccain/index.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)while Ted's parent was serving under official duty orders issued by the Secretary of Defense as authorized by the President of the United States?
That is the argument you will hear in response if anyone challenges McCain's bona fides--though he is the guy who opened this can of worms in the modern era!
This view that people who were born OUTSIDE USA were not considered "natural born" unless their parent was on official duties on behalf of the FEDERAL government of the USA is not a new one. In fact, it was the paradigm back in the day.
The view that "One parent a citizen, you are natural born, no matter where you are birthed" is a new one. It's not to do with CITIZENSHIP (if your parent is American so are you--that is a given) --it's to do solely with the "natural born" element.
I am not going to get in a big fight with people about whether or not this POV is valid, because I'm plainly not qualified to make that call--all I am saying is that, in my lifetime, this view was widely held. It was the paradigm at one time.
For this reason--and because I know that there are some people who still have strong views on this matter--I think it ought to get a full and fair hearing. Plus, I'll be frank--I'd love to see that child-exploiting little Grampa Munster lookalike be put through the wringer--he's an asshole. I think a little goose-gander is just what he needs.
It is only in recent decades (predating Obama, mind you) that the argument has shifted, and the "natural born" argument has glued itself more closely to the "citizen" argument. Many years ago, they were two very separated issues. You could be a citizen, and still be "not natural born," and you could do this without being "naturalized" FROM another nationality.
Also, there's some debate as to whether or not Canadian Cruz's mama registered the 'birth of a US citizen abroad' at the American Embassy, as she should have done to preserve his status. Let's run that through the wringer, too!!!
All in the name of adherence to Constitutional 'propers,' of course!!!
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)Bases back then were sketchy at best, and I believe that he was born on base, at a facility that was on the site where the actual hospital was built later.
Not many military folks brought their wives hack then, so a birth was probably not a routine occurrence
1939
(1,683 posts)The major US possessions always had married communities (Hawaii, Philippines, Canal Zone) of officer and their wives. Pershing actually had to issue an order that no wives were to be brought to France in 1917. The Canal Zone was quite an established base in the 1930s (WWII expansions were primarily air and air defense installations) and there would have been a hospital.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It was a little universe unto itself. It's mentioned, briefly, in this article:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28594016
Officers wives could and did travel more easily than enlisted ones; especially to places where maid service, child care, household staff, etc. was abundant and cheap and one could live well above their paygrade on the breadwinner's salary.
The bottom line, though, is that he was born there only because his father was on active duty in service to the nation. And even at that, over the decades there has been a morphing of attitude as to his "eligibility." It certainly is a political decision at this stage, but I'd love to see those bastards at the Supreme Court be forced to wrestle with it, if at all possible...!
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)right between those ribs.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)Be looked at. Had she become a Canadian citizen before he was born?
How long had it been since she lived in the US when she had him? Did she consider herself a US citizen?
Why did cruz wait until 2014 to give up his C citizenship?
malaise
(268,968 posts)That is the fundamental question
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)147 separate cases challenging Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility on grounds that he was not a natural born citizen were brought before the federal court system.
The courts did not rule even once whether or not he was eligible. Instead, EVERY LAST CASE WAS DISMISSED DUE TO A LACK OF STANDING!
All 147 cases were presented to the SCOTUS and all 147 were denied certiorari, meaning nobody have standing to bring such a challenge.
This set the precedent that eligibility under the natural born citizen cause is a political question, not a legal question.
Politically, the people voting have the first determination. The Congress serves as a check on te decision of the people as the Congress may determine a candidate is not eligible during the joint session which reads the electoral votes.
doc03
(35,328 posts)born in Canada and Canada is not part of the USA. The Republicans were trying to say Obama was born in Kenya and that disqualified him. So according to Republicans shouldn't Cruz be ineligible since he actually was born in another country.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That makes it a political question, not a legal question.
Just like impeachment and removal of presidents, vice presidents, and federal judges and justices are political questions, not legal questions.
Constitutionally, there is one branch of government with the final say on the eligibility of any candidate to be president. That is the Legislative branch. The voters have first say in all cases, though.
doc03
(35,328 posts)be underestimated.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)They are first in line to determine whether or not he is eligible.
Then, if nominated, the voters in the general election have the power to determine whether or not he is eligible.
Then, should Cruz obtain 270 or more electoral votes, the Congress will determine eligibility during the reading of the electoral votes in the Committee of the Whole. Should a single Congressperson and a single Senator present a written objection to his eligibility, a majority vote in each house of Congress makes the final determination. If 218 members of the House and 51 Senators say, "Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen", he is not.
The vote then goes to the House for the presidency where each state delegation gets a single vote and 26 votes elect the next president with Cruz ebing ineligible. The Senate would determine who is the Veep with 51 Senators agreeing making the determination, but only if a majority of each house invalidated the electoral votes for Veep because they determined Cruz was ineligible, otherwise whomsoever received 270 electoral votes for Veep would be Veep.
This is all laid out in the constitution.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm actually trying to have a little fun, here.
I'd love to see them forced to wrap their arms around the Canadian Cruz question!
Paka
(2,760 posts)the citizen has one year to register the birth with the US Embassy in that country and thereby secure citizenship. The key to it all is did the parent do the required registration. Straight forward and simple.
MADem
(135,425 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)his habit of pissing off everyone he works with - right and left - when absolutely nobody puts skin in this game and defends him. He's garnered zero support by his own colleagues and this is the result of that. He deserves it.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Inquiring minds want to know!!!