Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

More constitutional scholars are declaring Canadian Cruz ineligible to be president, including his very own Harvard Law professor

By Thomas Madison

Updated February 21, 2016

More and more constitutional scholars are coming forward to declare that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be president. Even by Cruz’s own strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution he is not eligible. I reckon in this one tiny case Canadian Cruz is conveniently ignoring the very constitution he claims to revere so much.

The latest constitutional scholar/expert to affirm Cruz’s ineligibility is his very own Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, who Cruz now discounts as “a liberal left-wing judicial activist.” LOL! You just can’t make this stuff up.

Ted Cruz really fumbled the ball on this one when he failed to have the issue settled judicially well before 2016. It’s too late now. I guess he figured he could simply declare himself eligible and the world, including the Democrats, would get in line behind him. Right, and I’m George Clooney.

If the sky turns green tomorrow and the sun rises in the west and Cruz somehow winds up with the most primary delegates, the RNC is straight jacket crazy if they run him, as the other team is led by Hitlery Clinton, who will immediately challenge Cruz’s eligibility and tear the prospect of the Canadian’s eligibility to pieces with the help of the Clinton Communications Bureau, otherwise known as the mainstream media, (update) and a now liberal-friendly Supreme Court.

From Taylor Wofford, Newsweek

A growing number of legal scholars are saying that Senator Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, is not eligible to run for president of the United States.

A growing number of constitutional law scholars are arguing that Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada makes him ineligible to become U.S. president. Their argument could prove a thorn in the side of the senator, who is a zealous originalist on most constitutional questions—with what seems like a notable exception.

The issue has moved to the center of the presidential campaign, with Cruz’s rise in the polls and Donald Trump claiming that Cruz needs to prove he’s eligible to run by getting a declaratory judgment in federal court.

There is some ambiguity in the question of eligibility. The Constitution sets down three requirements to assume the nation’s highest office: one must be at least 35 years old, have been a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years (though whether those years must be consecutive or can be cumulative is a question up for debate) and must be a “natural-born citizen” of the United States. But the founders did not explicitly define “natural-born citizen,” leaving room for doubt and debate.

While Cruz has told reporters his eligibility to become president is “settled law” because his mother was an American citizen when he was born and never renounced her American citizenship while she was a Canadian resident. Many constitutional theorists agree with Cruz that it’s not really up for debate.

But it’s hardly unanimous. An increasing number of high-profile constitutional law professors, including one of Cruz’s own professors from Harvard Law School, have in recent days argued publicly that Cruz’s birth disqualifies him.

“[I]t’s all in how you read the Constitution,” wrote Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional and international law at Fordham University, in an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times Sunday:

There are three leading theories of how to interpret the Constitution today. One is textualism: The Constitution means what its words say. The historical context of the words is important when a modern plain meaning is not self-evident. A second theory, adopted by many liberals, relies on a “living Constitution”: the Constitution means what is most consistent with fundamental constitutional values as applied to present circumstances. The third theory, championed by many leading conservatives, is originalism: The Constitution means what ordinary people would have understood it to mean at the time it was ratified, in 1788.

According to Lee, two legal theories of citizenship were popular at the time the Constitution was ratified:jus soli (Latin for “law of the land), which held that a child’s citizenship flowed from the actual, physical place of his birth, and jus sanguinis (“law of the blood”), which held that parents passed their citizenship to their children. However, Lee argues, at the time the Constitution was ratified, jus sanguinis applied only to patrilineal descent.

“However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband’s—much rarer then than today—could not be a ‘natural born Citizen’ of the mother’s country. That idea wasn’t even considered until 1844 in Victorian England.”

Mary Brigid McManamon, a constitutional law professor at Widener University, made a similar argument in The Washington Post Tuesday. “In this election cycle, numerous pundits have declared that Cruz is eligible to be president,” she writes. “They rely on a supposed consensus among legal experts. This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by former Solicitors General Neal Katyal and Paul Clement. In trying to put the question of who is a natural-born citizen to rest, however, the authors misunderstand, misapply and ignore the relevant law.”

The law Katyal and Clement are ignoring, McManamon argues, is 18th-century English common law, which the Supreme Court has said is a necessary lens for understanding the founders’ understanding of the Constitution—a fact that Katyal, Clement and McManamon agree on. English common law was “unequivocal” on the subject, McManamon says: “Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory.” Katyal and Clement, rather than relying on common law, turn for their interpretation to a trio of 18th-century British statutes that were “a revolutionary departure” from the common law, McManamon argues.

Now a former teacher of Cruz’s says he thinks the senator isn’t eligible to run for president. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard who taught both Cruz and President Barack Obama, wrote about the subject in an op-ed published Monday in The Boston Globe.

“People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be,” Tribe writes. “But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an ‘originalist,’ one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen. Even having two U.S. parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”

Tribe later called Cruz a “fair-weather originalist” on CNN, saying the senator’s philosophy is “antiquated…but it turns out Ted Cruz drops that when it doesn’t serve his purpose.”

Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, had been touting Tribe’s scholarship on the question in the days leading up to the Harvard professor’s op-ed. In response, Cruz called Tribe “a liberal left-wing judicial activist.”

Ex-Army officer and stone-cold patriot, Thomas Madison is on a mission to contribute in any and every way to the restoration of and strict obedience to the United States Constitution, that divinely-inspired, concise, intentionally and specifically broad (wrap your head around that oxymoron) blueprint which has gifted the world with the concept and realization of individual liberty and unlimited prosperity. We, as a nation, have lost our way. We have spent the past one-hundred years attempting to fix what was never broken. As with building anything, when you can't figure it out, consult the blueprint. So too with rebuilding America, the blueprint for which is the United States Constitution.

Leave a comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

  • rockribbedrushy

    As it has been shown on
    you can see the history of Donald Trump’s so-called evolution. He has been primarily a life long democrat in league with the Clintons, the top democrat elite in Congress and elsewhere. He has said that he prefers working with Pelosi and Schumer. He taken money and given money to Major Metropolitan Moguls in the Banking Industry. He is not to be trusted.

    • John Redmond

      why do you believe fabricated propaganda. Trump has been a strong moderate Republican since the Reagan era. and here is his recorded and certified donor record. He has given a little over $457,000 to 96 members 48 Republicans and 48 democrats for business and charitable purposes.

      REPUBLICAN DONALD TRUMP’S PAST AND CURRENT GENEROSITY TO DEMOCRATS: Billionaire real estate tycoon Donald Trump’s recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference excited a number of Republicans, many of whom applauded his statement that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has “zero chance” of winning.
      It also fueled speculation that the mogul would run for president. Cries of “you’re hired!” to a Draft Trump 2012 website added to a growing sense of support among Republicans.
      But that GOP support has not always been reciprocated by Trump.

      According to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of Trump’s federal campaign contribution history, The Donald has been a prolific donor to both Democrats and Republicans during the past two decades.
      In all, Trump has contributed to 96 candidates running for federal political office since the 1990 election cycle, the Center finds. Only 48 of the recipients — exactly half — were Republicans at the time they received their contribution, including ex-Gov. Charlie Crist (I-Fla.) and ex-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who both of whom received their Trump contributions as Republicans.

      Since the 1990 election cycle, the top 10 recipients of Trump’s political contributions number six Democrats and four Republicans. Embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was censured last year by his U.S. House colleagues, has received the most Trump money, totaling $24,750. The most recent contribution from Trump to Rangel was a $10,000 gift during the 2006 election cycle. In the most recent election cycle, Trump doled out $22,500 to political candidates, of which $16,200 benefited Democrats.
      The top Republican recipient of Trump’s money is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who has collected $13,600 from the billionaire magnate, the second most of any politician. Trump did not contribute to McCain during the 2010 election cycle, during which the former presidential candidate was facing re-election.
      Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is the recipient of $12,000 in Trump contributions, including $10,000 for his 2006 re-election campaign.
      Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has received the fourth-largest amount of Trump’s contributions, including $4,800 in the successful 2010 campaign against Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle. In total Trump has contributed $10,400 to Reid.

      In 2010, Trump also contributed $4,000 to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who easily won re-election. Schumer has received $8,900 from Trump since the 1996 election cycle. Trump has also been generous to New York’s other Democratic U.S. senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, who’s received $5,850 in Trump money.
      After McCain, the Republican with the largest amount of Trump’s contributions is former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), who left office in disgrace in 2006 when his online solicitation of male House pages became known. Trump contributed $9,500 to Foley between the 1996 and 2006 election cycles.

      Trump has also supported other notable politicians, including:
      • $7,000 to former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), the “liberal lion of the Senate”
      • $7,500 to former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R)
      • $5,500 to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) including $2,000 during his 2004 presidential run
      • $5,000 to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)
      • $4,000 to former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)
      • $2,000 to former President George W. Bush (R)
      • $1,000 to then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.)
      Trump’s donations to various political action committees and 527 groups also demonstrate his bipartisan checkbook.
      During the most recent election cycle, Trump contributed $170,000 to the Republican Governor’s Association, $50,000 to the ultra-conservative American Crossroads PAC, $30,400 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and $10,000 to the Democratic Party of New York.
      However, of the nearly $420,000 Trump has donated to committees, the largest recipient has been the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee with $116,000 — or more than one fourth of his total contributions to all party and political action committees.

      • rockribbedrushy

        Money aside, he is still primarily a Liberal Democrat, whichever side he votes for.

    • Surly Curmudgen

      Please try separating the Donald Trump, wealthy businessman protecting his wealth and business from politicians by buttering them up and agreeing with whatever would please them, from the current Donald Trump who is running for the office of president and does not owe anyone the right to tell him what to do. Two totally different Donald Trumps.

      The media and the progressives in both parties are terrified of Trump, that he would nuc their beloved agenda and ideology. By now everyone of them know they have no chance of stopping him or beating him. Deal with it lefties.

  • Hector Montes

    If Cruz is ineligible, then Bubble Boy Rubio is not either, at least the mother of Cruz was and is an american citizen, the parents of Rubio they are both from Cuba.

    • Henry Ridgeway

      Rubio was born in Miami. Try to keep up.

      • 657241

        But both MARCO’s parents were Cuban Citizens at time of Marco’s birth. Marco was born in 1971 in Miami. His parents were Cubans at time of his birth. They were naturalized only in 1974. Marco and Ted have to meet both requirements: Born in the soil of the USA. Marco passed that requirement, Ted Cruz failed it. Both parents have to be US Citizens OR NATURALIZED CITIZENS AT TIME OF BIRTH Ted CRUZ failed this requirement also. BOTH PARENTS WERE CANADIANS. Only 14 months ago,
        Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship. Marco Rubio failed it also. Therefore, both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are NOT NATURAL BORN and therefore are NOT eligible for POTUS.

        • Henry Ridgeway

          I don’t think so. I think the 14th Amendment cured Rubio’s problem. He was born in Miami, therefore he’s natural-born. Same with Obama, born in Hawai’i.

        • Samuel M. Smith

          Cinstitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
          The Constitutional REQUIREMENT is Natural Born. By being born inside the sovereign territory of the United States.a person IS Natural Born and a Citizen. This why it is so important to prevent ‘Illegal Aliens from remaining within the U. S. until they have a child here. But that is the flip side off why Illegal Aliens TRY TO come when the pregnancy has a good chance of bearing fruit while here.

          On the other hand, my oldest daughter was born in U. S. Naval Station Hospital, Argentia, Newfoundland, Canada. Both her mother and I were born and raised in the U. S. , she in Virginia and I in Florida and were citizens. She was sent a U. S. State Department Birth Certificate because she was born on Sovereign U. S. territory, but that territory was located in Canadian territory and she also received a Canadian Birth Certificate also. Technically, she had dual Citizenship and because both parents were U. S. citizens, she could be President even though she was born outside the actual U. S. territory, but, in fact, she could have to be a Canadian instead of a U. S. citizen had she so decided at age 21. As it was, we left Canadian territory when she was six (6) months old and never returned. So, the actual practice would indicate that Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen as one parent does not quallify hlim

  • Weneedtermlimits

    So where were all these experts in 2007 ?

    • “Deplorable” MeJane

      Keeping quiet for Obama.

    • Henry Ridgeway

      There was no need for this discussion in 20017, as Obama was born in Hawai’i and the 14th Amendment controls.

      • Henry Ridgeway

        Sorry. Meant 2007.

      • Fiat is theft-end the Fed

        The 14th is not why Obama was eligible you idiot. He is eligible by being born to an American Parent on American soil. The 14th only applies to former slaves. It is the most narrow amendment in the constitution.

        • Henry Ridgeway

          Thank you for clearing that up. I many times thought I might be an idiot, but it’s nice to have independent confirmation. Being an idiot, I can’t seem to find the text of the 14th Amendment which states that it only applies to former slaves. Could you point it out to me?

  • Surly Curmudgen

    We are so close to that time when all those who spent the past eight years telling me I was wrong will have to eat the large number of crows I will deliver.

  • Cruzin77

    The latest constitutional scholar/expert to affirm Cruz’s ineligibility is his very own Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, who Cruz now discounts as “a liberal left-wing judicial activist.”

    I’ll wager Cruz didn’t call Mr. Tribe “a liberal left wing judicial activist” when Tribe came out in 2010 and said the barrycare mandate was unconstitutional. Cruz is right, Tribe is a liberal.

  • Fiat is theft-end the Fed

    “In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,”
    it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may
    inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause.
    Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period
    itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and
    Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is
    David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

    Is a much more relevant argument than the English Common Law angle.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Send this to a friend