January 1, 2022

Ted Cruz presidency.

State of Texas. Art.3 Sec.6 of the Texas Constitution states, “Qualifications of Senators. No person shall be a Senator unless he be a citizen.” Ted Cruz was elected to the United States Senate in 2012. He was not a citizen of the United States until May of 2014, 1-1/2 years later.

Ted Cruz is not a Constitutional “natural born citizen” of the United States and now wants to be president of the United States, again. Let us say that instead of being born in Canada, Ted Cruz was born in Russia. Would we accept that? If so, we will be setting a new precedent for the future. The Constitution’s “natural born citizen” allegiance is set to this country and no other, the United States of America. There are 175 members in Congress who, because of their seditious stand against any January 6th Capitol Building Congressional inquiry, would have no problem supporting Ted Cruz or any president having allegiance to two countries.

William Heino Sr.

Join the Conversation

78 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

      1. NOT true Garret. The five plus SCOTUS decisions defining NBC as “one born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves” are not going to just disappear.

        1. No U.S. Supreme Court case has concluded natural-born citizens are only those born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.

          Several recent eligibility cases have expressly rejected that definition.

        1. There are no contrary facts: Hirono naturalized; Cruz never did.

          Different people in different situations.

          And courts’ rulings aren’t “propaganda.”

        2. Unlike Senator Cruz’s mother, Senator Hirono’s mother was not able to pass US citizenship to the senator at birth. The reason for this is that Senator Hirono’s mother left the US when she was 15 and therefore did not meet the residency requirement in the 1940 Immigration and Nationality Act.

          “g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years’ residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years’ residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease. The preceding provisos shall not apply to a child born abroad whose American parent is at the time of the child’s birth residing abroad solely or principally in the employment of the Government of the United States or a bona fide American educational, scientific, philanthropic, religious, commercial, or financial organization, having its principal office or place of business in the United States, or an international agency of an official character in which the United States participates, for which he receives a substantial compensation”

          https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030106.html

          Senator Cruz’s mother did meet the residency requirement of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act and could therefore pass US citizenship to her son. BTW, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act Of 1947, there does not appear to be any requirement that a person must give up there previous citizenship when naturalizing as a Canadian citizen.

        3. Here is link to Canadian Citizenship Act Of 1947

          https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/canadian-citizenship-act-1947

          Part III 17 (1) appears to apply to Senator Cruz.

          It also appears that it would be difficult but not impossible for Cruz’s mother to have obtained Canadian citizenship before Senator Cruz was born on December 22, 1970. They would have needed to be living in Canada for one year before she could even petition for naturalization. The Cruzes married and then moved to Canada in 1969 so the one year waiting period would ended at some point in 1970. It would depend on how efficient the process for naturalization was for her to be granted citizenship before Ted’s birth.

          As to the Canadian voter rolls which list her were made in 1974 well after Ted’s birth. She could have become a Canadian citizen after his birth. None of that matters as there is no evidence that she ever gave up her US Citizenship.

      1. You don’t get any merit badges for trying out for the Comedy Club.
        My own US Senators snub my questions of truth that I present to them?

  1. IMO if Cruz runs neither party will go after him on the eligibility issue because doing so will bring up the subject of Obama and Kamala Harris, and their lack of eligibility. That is something both parties do not want. Republicans won’t say anything because they allowed both Obama and Harris to be sworn-in without objection.

    Both parties are protecting themselves from being found guilty of violating the Constitution and of giving America’s government and her military to her enemies by allowing and protecting ineligible candidates………….That is the biggest criminal act against American citizens and her Constitution in history, by far. It is apparently a crime too big to prosecute and no judge was/is going to make a decision that could “undo” the putative presidency of the ineligible, identity fraud, race and ineligibility protected Barack Hussein Obama, after Obama was allowed to be sworn-in by John Roberts in 2009.

    Investigations into the rampant criminality of the Obama regime result in a big nothing, because the investigators are themselves part of allowing and protecting usurpers of America’s presidency and vice-presidency…….Both parties are protecting number one, themselves. Hillary was not supposed to lose as planned, promised and much needed after Obama cover president, and especially not to Obama’s biggest nemesis, Donald Trump.
    The protection from foreign influence provided by the Constitution’s requirement for NBC has been effectively removed, and for proof of the damage that can do to our Constitutional Republic see: “Obama”.
    Also, review Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and The Cloward-Piven Strategy.

        1. Occam’s razor suggests the parties’ silence about Cruz’s eligibility is due to them believing Cruz is eligible, and not the more elaborate situation where they believe Cruz is ineligible but remain silent for murky reasons.

      1. You are keeping YOURSELF busy. No one is forcing you to file frivolous lawsuits and send letters to every member of Congress that will be opened by assistants and summarily dismissed. You have chosen your hobby voluntarily.

        Judges appointed by presidents of both political parties have ruled on all the issues you bring forth and dismissed them. Most of the judges have carefully explained their decisions based on law and precedent. The rulings are not going to change based only upon your beliefs. That is why I call what you do a hobby. It is done for your own pleasure and serves no other useful purpose.

        1. Besides Muggs’ above comment, have any other comment about this article crossed “the line to personal attacks and denigration of others”?

          The clarity would be appreciated.

        2. Cruz is not eligible to be President or VP. My efforts are not frivolous. The DC Circuit TRIED that with me already. Threatened to file sanctions against me for filing a so called “Frivolous” case. THEY had to back down. The matter is not frivolous. The Quo Warranto case I filed against Harris was dismissed on claimed “Lack of Standing” and not because of any frivolity of the case. This is not a “hobby”. This is a serious effort to defend our American Republic.

        3. RL

          Yes, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals let you off the hook but they said in no uncertain terms that if you brought a similar appeal again they would not hesitate to sanction you. They did not have to back down. They just took pity on a misinformed pro se plaintiff who had already ready wasted his filing fees.

          “Although the court declines to impose sanctions in this instance, Laity is forewarned that this court will not hesitate to grant a motion for sanctions against him, or impose sanctions on its own motion, in any of his future appeals, if warranted”.

          In court speak that is “Don’t you dare bring such frivolous stuff here again”.

          I am certain this comment will be considered a personal attack and not published. However, I am just quoting a decision by the DC Circuit and correctly interpreting what it meant. Mr. Laity may of course interpret it on his own.

  2. Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban-citizen father. That alone means he is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Yes, his mother was an American, but that is not enough to make him a natural born citizen. Further, there is reportedly evidence that his mother voted in Canada, which means she became a Canadian citizen. No person born in Canada to a Cuban father and a Canadian mother can be considered a natural born citizen of the U.S. At best, he could at some point in his life have become a naturalized U.S. citizen – in 2014, as the author suggests.

    1. Courts already have ruled that Cruz is a natural-born citizen because he acquired at birth his U.S. citizenship from his mother.

      There’s no evidence that Cruz’s mother ever lost her U.S. citizenship.

      There’s no evidence that Cruz ever naturalized; he would not need to, having been a natural-born citizen.

      1. Wrong. 100% wrong. More leftist spin. For starters Cruz has admitted and Canadian law supports the FACT that Cruz was a Canadian citizen until he conveniently feigned ignorance (some Constitutionalist) about his citizenship and renounced HIS CANADIAN citizenship to run for POTUS.

        1. Saying “wrong” is not evidence that anything was, in fact, wrong.

          That Cruz was a Canadian citizen until he renounced his Canadian citizenship is undisputed but irrelevant: Cruz’s Canadian citizenship did not affect his being a natural-born citizen of the United States.

      2. Privacy laws and elite background check exemptions aside, Rafael E. (Ted) Cruz has never publicly offered his United States Birth Certificate. Why? Probably because he has none.

        This commenter will continue to research Internet archives in an effort to determine Ted Cruz’s personal immigration status just prior to the time that President Ronald W. Reagan’s 1986 blanket illegal (undocumented for the liberals) alien amnesty law went into effect.

        The question to be asked that may make some commenters squirm would be: “Was Ted Cruz among the illegal (undocumented) aliens given amnesty under this Reagan amnesty law?

        1. Cruz doesn’t have a birth certificate from one of the United States because Cruz was born in Canada.

          Cruz doesn’t have an “immigration status” because Cruz never immigrated; Cruz has been a natural-born citizen of the United States since his birth.

      3. Every baby born overseas to one, or even two US citizens, requires immigration documentation of some sort in order for this newborn to legally enter the United States of America. If no documentation is found or another US president does not do the stupid blanket amnesty thing, the newborn will forever be an undocumented alien in the eyes of immigration officials.

        Proof. One of my nephews, born of two U. S. of A. citizen parents (father in military) in the United Kingdom, did not have proper documentation while many years living in the U.S. of A. and was required in his 30’s to obtain legal documentation from immigration services to prove his U. S. of A. citizenship.

        Summary: My nephew is a STATUTORY (according to positive law) US citizen and not a natural born Citizen (according to natural law) because he failed to be born “in the country”.

        1. Cruz did not require “immigration documentation” to enter the United States because he is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

          Cruz’s proof of U.S. citizenship that he provided when he first entered the United States not being publicly accessible doesn’t necessarily mean that it doesn’t exist.

        2. Precisely why McCain was not an NBC. McCain was born to two US Citizens. However, he was NOT born IN the United States. He was born IN Panama.

        3. That McCain ran twice should be an indication that birth in the United States is not required to be a natural born citizen.

          That no one questioned McCain’s natural born citizenship in 2000 should be an indication why it was only belatedly challenged in 2008.

        4. That article says only “it was researched again in 2000,” and not that McCain was challenged in 2000.

          That people like Hurley started to look at McCain’s natural-born citizenship after Obama’s was being questioned is unsurprising.

        5. “Purportedly” prevents comparing the circumstances; remove it, and the task becomes easier; for example:

          Obama was born in Hawaii, which is part of the United States, while McCain was born in Panama, which is not part of the United States.

          None of which alters that McCain’s eligibility was not questioned until after Obama’s was, despite McCain’s first running for the presidency eight years before Obama’s first presidential candidacy.

        6. This 2000 Slate article mentions McCain’s eligibility. Also others,

          “The issue last surfaced in the 1960s when George Romney, born in Mexico to American parents, and Barry Goldwater, who was born in the Arizona Territory, ran for president.”

          https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/01/is-mccain-eligible-for-the-presidency.html

          The question is not a recent one as in 1903 the eligibility of George McClellan Jr. was questione for the same reason.

          https://crowd.loc.gov/campaigns/rough-rider-bull-moose-theodore-roosevelt/4-jan-1903-july-15-1904-naturalist-and-nominee/mss382990044/mss382990044-911/

        1. The courts already have ruled Cruz is a natural-born citizen.

          That you believe the courts are wrong doesn’t mean you are correct; it only means you believe the courts are wrong.

          Your disapproval did not stop Cruz in 2016, and won’t stop Cruz from any future possible run.

  3. “State of Texas. Art.3 Sec.6 of the Texas Constitution”

    Cruz was never a member of the Texas State Senate so this section of the Texas State Constitution does not apply.

    Cruz was a US citizen by birth according to the US Immigration laws in effect at the time.

    US Courts have ruled Cruz a natural born citizen.

    Williams v. Cruz in New Jersey

    https://media.philly.com/documents/Judge's+ruling+Ted+Cruz+to+remain+on+NJ+ballot.pdf

    Elliot v Cruz in Pennsylvania

    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1733401.html

    1. An NBC is “one born IN the US to parents who are BOTH US citizens themselves”. Cruz is a criminal. He knows he is ineligible. He is committing Fraud.

      1. The courts have rejected that definition. So Cruz knows that he’s eligible, and there’s nothing criminal nor fraudulent about an eligible candidate running.

        1. Not only has the US Supreme Court NOT rejected “that definition” they are the ones who DEFINED IT as “One born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves”. Cruz is a fraud. Had I had the requisite “Standing” in the cases that I filed, Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Harris would all be prosecuted for treason against the United States. They are all complicit with usurpation of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, by fraud, during time of war. A crime punishable by the death penalty if convicted.

        2. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that natural born citizens are only those born in the United States to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves.

          That you lacked standing in your latest case was readily inferable at the outset from the numerous previous challenges that were also dismissed for lack of standing.

          The belief that disagreeing with you is treason, fraud, or some other imagined horror is not borne out by reality. There will be no convictions, no death penalty over this.

        3. There is no legitimate, legal certified document in the public domain that proves that aka Obama was born in Hawaii. NONE WHATSOEVER. What we do have for certain is a forged digital birth certificate, a forged selective service registration and continued use of an obviously stolen social security number. And BTW bring on the DNA testing. No way Brack Sr. is the father. However if we concede he is that clearly makes Obama NOT a NBC.

        4. Certified documents aren’t in “the public domain” (whatever that means), but the State of Hawaii has verified and certified Obama was born there. Its health departments used to mail proof of Obama’s Hawaiian birth, but it may have stopped that practice due to abuse.

          There’s no evidence that Obama’s birth certificate, either the certified paper version or a digital image of it, was forged. Forging a digital image would be an especially odd folly when Obama can and has obtained a certified paper copy.

          There also is no evidence that Obama’s selective service registration was forged, or that Obama ever “stole” or otherwise used a Social Security Number not assigned to him

          There is no evidence that Obama’s father is anyone other than Barack Obama, Sr.

          As various court already have ruled, Obama is a natural-born citizen because he was born in the United States.

          None of this, of course, is relevant to Cruz’s being a natural-born citizen.

      2. Because a random guy from NY state believes you are ineligible does not constitute fraud. Cruz was on the ballot in every state for which he applied to run as a presidential candidate in 2016 and swatted down a handful of challenges in various courts. Cruz will never win IMO and that’s a good thing.

        If anyone believes Cruz is not eligible they can vote for another candidate

        1. Ineligible candidate should be precluded from running AT ALL. In fact NY State Election Law states this very prohibition. The NY State Board of Elections can’t even get the Article II requirement straight. I told them (13) years ago that the requirement is that one be a “Natural Born Citizen” yet NY State continues to misstate the requirement to be President and VP as being “Born a citizen”. These two different terms of art are NOT tantamount.

        2. @RL

          Your problem is that no court including the Supreme court has ever differentiated among the terms natural born, native born, citizen at birth, or born citizen. The terms are all interchangeable from a legal standpoint. There is no magical definition for natural born that is distinct from the other terms.

        3. Election officials can prevent facially ineligible candidates from appearing on the ballot. That candidates such as Cruz appeared on ballots is an indication that he is eligible.

          Every court that considered the issue concluded a citizen at birth is a natural-born citizen.

    1. Crooked Judges rule in a criminal’s favor. Ted Cruz is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States. An NBC is “one born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves. Minor v. Happersett, USSCt. (1874), Unanimous.

      1. Courts already have rejected the argument that natural-born citizens are only those born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.

        You are of course free to disagree with the courts’ rulings, but courts’ not ruling in a manner not of your liking doesn’t mean they were acting criminally.

        And you are not free to pretend those court rulings don’t exist.

        1. As the courts have repeatedly ruled, no U.S. Supreme Court precedent supports your beliefs.

          You are not free to ignore the courts’ repeated rejections of your beliefs.

        2. Garret Hobart,
          Are you saying, for example, that a baby born in the United States to two illegal alien parents from Iraq, will be eligible to be U.S. President and Commander-in-Chief of her military when the age and residency requirements of the Constitution are met? Is any paperwork needed, or not?

        3. Cruz wasn’t born in the United States, so the hypothetical isn’t applicable to Cruz.

          Regardless, yes: the courts already have ruled, minor exceptions aside, all those born in the United States are natural-born citizens, regardless of the parents’ citizenship.

          Eligibility and electability are very different concepts.

          A person born in the United States should have a birth certificate issued by the state in which the birth occurred.

    2. From Joseph DeMaio:
      ———————–
      The basis for Senator Cruz’ ineligibility to the presidency is explained here (The Decisions in Elliott v. Cruz and Williams v. Cruz – The Post & Email (thepostemail.com)) and here (The Decisions in Elliott v. Cruz and Williams v. Cruz, Conclusion – The Post & Email (thepostemail.com)), the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to the contrary notwithstanding. Those who consider the judiciary to be infallible need to research the issues more thoroughly.

      1. Every court that considered Cruz’s eligibility ruled in his favor.

        Your disagreement with the courts’ rulings do not invalidate them; your disagreement only shows that you disagree.

        Neither does your disagreement prove your correctness; the opposite, actually.

      1. It is easy to call any judge who doesn’t rule in your favor malfeasant and corrupt on a blog they will never read. However, what does that accomplish? Thanks to cases filed against President Barack Obama, candidates John McCain, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal etc. beginning in 2008 and onward there is now a fairly large body of legal precedents that anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen. At this point it would take at minimum legislation and at maximum a Constitutional amendment to change that. There does not seem to be a national consensus for either at present.