Ted Cruz Presidential campaign discussion thread

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@running_coach

Republicans don’t produce a reflection.

I’m totally stealing this.

[YogSothoth]

@Damuri_Ajashi

It seems like you are saying dysfunctional government is a good thing because an effective government will only be effective at doing things that are bad for us.

You cannot reason with people whose goal is unreasonable.

I want a big government. HUGE government. One that exists to protect people’s rights. Because rights are created and given by the government, then enforced. Without government you have no rights, you simply have might. Only government can allow us the freedom to exercise rights

[BrainGlutton]

@Merneith

Cruz doesn’t have that problem, no matter where he was born, hence no reason why the racists should object to him.

Well, I dunno. We’ve never had a POTUS of the Pillsbury Doughboy race before. Is America ready?

[running_coach]

@BrainGlutton

Well, I dunno. We’ve never had a POTUS of the Pillsbury Doughboy race before. Is America ready?

That explains all the half-baked ideas.

[Onomatopoeia]

@adaher

But Cruz looks like a middle aged guy and Rubio looks like he’s 25, so there ya go.

Woman. Cruz looks like a middle aged woman.

[wonky]

@Onomatopoeia

Woman. Cruz looks like a middle aged woman.

For the love of Pete, we don’t want him!

[running_coach]

@jsgoddess

For the love of Pete, we don’t want him!

We’ve had him for 45 years, it’s your turn.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Derleth

The Panama Canal Zone, which was an unincorporated territory of the United States until 1979, which meant he was a US citizen at birth under laws passed in 1937.

Then why did Congress have to pass subsequent legislation making him (and others born in the zone in the same period) a citizen?

[2ManyTacos]

I just LOVE that GOP establishment types are going after Cruz’s citizenship eligibility this cycle; it demonstrates some semblance of consistency given all the nonsense that Obama was subjected to. And Hell, in Cruz’s case the questioning actually makes some sense, given that, y’know, he legitimately was born in a foreign country.

[wonky]

@running_coach

We’ve had him for 45 years, it’s your turn.

Then you get Sarah Palin. HA!

[Derleth]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Then why did Congress have to pass subsequent legislation making him (and others born in the zone in the same period) a citizen?

According to the New York Times, the relevant legislation was passed in 1937:

At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.

Obviously, Professor Chin’s analysis is debatable, but that 1937 law is what I was talking about.

In fact, here is the 1937 law:

@8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

I bolded the parts that make it ex post facto, and therefore allow it to apply to McCain. According to all the cites I can find, this law was passed in 1937.

So… what subsequent legislation?

[BrainGlutton]

This is how Ted Cruz wins: Why the formerly unthinkable could really, actually happen.

Early indications are that some DC insiders are still living in hope that one of the establishment types will break through but, still also harbor so much animosity toward Cruz that they’ll take the risk of Trump rather than accept him as their leader. But they are in the minority. Jeb Bush, for instance, refused to say that he would vote for Trump if he were to get the nomination.

More interestingly, it looks as though some of the mainstream conservative pundits are starting to make peace with the idea that Cruz may end up as the establishment candidate by default. Rich Lowry made this case in Politico by calling into question the conventional wisdom that Cruz is another Goldwater extremist who will necessarily go down in a massive general election defeat. And instead of finding parallels to his aggressive ambition in the repellant Joseph McCarthy, he compares him instead to another awkward, unlikeable politician who nonetheless got millions of people to vote for him for president in one very close loss, one very close win and one huge landslide: Richard Nixon.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@BrainGlutton

This is how Ted Cruz wins: Why the formerly unthinkable could really, actually happen.

This is pretty much what I said in another thread. I have thought that Cruz was a credible candidate since I first saw him stumping with Trump.

[Sam_Lowry]

Sorry if someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but now Cruz is presenting his mother’s birth certificate in response to the lawsuit being threatened. And while she was undeniably born in the US, there is now some questions about whether she lost or renounced her citizenship while she was in Canada. She was on an official list of eligible Canadian citizens to vote. That doesn’t definitely mean she wasn’t an American citizen; it could be that it was just a mistake she’s on the list, or that she’s a dual citizen. Cruz’s campaign says the list doesn’t actually show eligible voters, but that’s just untrue.

Really, I think it does bring up some general questions about citizenship, and it would be nice if things were definitively settled by the courts. But specifically for Cruz, it does make me laugh that this is an annoying issue for him. This especially makes me chuckle:

Yale professor of constitutional law Laurence Tribe, who taught Obama, Cruz, and chief justice John Roberts, also says that the questions about Cruz’s citizenship and the constitutionality of him becoming president are ‘unsettled’ as matters of law and that there is a rich irony if this case were to go to trial.

“In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court – an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption – Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.”

He added: “Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

“On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors – a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time – Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.”

Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”

I think he probably should be ruled eligible, but it makes me laugh that any judge he’d like would rule him ineligible. Of course he’d have some argument about why he’d be an exception, but I still enjoy the irony of it.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Derleth

In fact, here is the 1937 law:I bolded the parts that make it ex post facto, and therefore allow it to apply to McCain. According to all the cites I can find, this law was passed in 1937.

So… what subsequent legislation?

Subsequent to his birth. He was not a US citizen “at birth,” because the relevant law was passed after his birth, notwithstanding its applicability to those born prior to passage. Congress declared McCain and those similarly situated to be citizens. It did not declare him to be a natural born citizen.

I happen to think (like Dr. Deth) the whole thing is silly and that McCain is perfectly qualified to be POTUS from a constitutional perspective, but it’s certainly fair to those who cast doubt on Obama’s qualifications but made nary a peep about McCain’s.

[Rick_Kitchen]

As much as I enjoy the schadenfreude over Cruz’s citizenship dilemma, it should be noted that Lawrence Tribe is one of the most ultra-liberal people around.

[adaher]

McCain was born on a military base, wasn’t he? Isn’t that legally US territory?

Now Cruz’s situation, I’d rejected the idea of him being ineligible out of hand, but if his mother was a Canadian citizen that brings his eligibility into question, IMO. The law is unsettled, but a guy who is born to Canadian parents where one ALSO has US citizenship seems to me to be stretching the boundaries of “natural born” to the limit.

Does anyone know if the Canadian oath of citizenship requires renunciation of all other allegiances, as ours does?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

A military base certainly isn’t US territory. Overseas military bases remain the territory of the host state. In fact, the fiction that Guantanamo is not US territory (though for all practical purposes it is occupied Cuban land) affects the rights of the Gitmo prisoners.

Congress has passed legislation providing that US bases are now US territory for citizenship purposes (and other legislation allowing US citizens to confer citizenship on their foreign-born kids regardless of where it happens) but none of that legislation existed when McCain was born.

Again, I still think the whole thing is a joke. But it’s a Republican-written-and-performed one.

[Dr.Drake]

@adaher

McCain was born on a military base, wasn’t he? Isn’t that legally US territory?

Now Cruz’s situation, I’d rejected the idea of him being ineligible out of hand, but if his mother was a Canadian citizen that brings his eligibility into question, IMO. The law is unsettled, but a guy who is born to Canadian parents where one ALSO has US citizenship seems to me to be stretching the boundaries of “natural born” to the limit.

Does anyone know if the Canadian oath of citizenship requires renunciation of all other allegiances, as ours does?

Whether the Canadian oath requires that or not, it means nothing if the USA doesn’t recognize Canadian requirements as binding.

Case in point: my mother swore to renounce all other allegiances when she became an American citizen. The USA’s opinion is that she is an American citizen, and only an American citizen. Canada’s opinion is that she can renounce all she likes, and acquire all the extra citizenships she likes, but she nevertheless remains a Canadian citizen.

[adaher]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

A military base certainly isn’t US territory. Overseas military bases remain the territory of the host state. In fact, the fiction that Guantanamo is not US territory (though for all practical purposes it is occupied Cuban land) affects the rights of the Gitmo prisoners.

Congress has passed legislation providing that US bases are now US territory for citizenship purposes (and other legislation allowing US citizens to confer citizenship on their foreign-born kids regardless of where it happens) but none of that legislation existed when McCain was born.

Again, I still think the whole thing is a joke. But it’s a Republican-written-and-performed one.

However, McCain was born to US parents and was born a US citizen. And it’s hard not to call the Panama Canal Zone US territory when it had a governor.

I don’t think it’s a joke because we have to draw the line somewhere. What is the purpose of the “natural born citizen” clause? To insure that there are no dual loyalties. If Ted Cruz’s parents are Canadian and he was born in Canada, he’s a natural born citizen only in the most technical and liberal reading of the term.

I don’t want much. Just for his mother to be an American citizen and never renounced her American citizenship. Yes, I know that despite the words we have people say, we don’t actually enforce the “sole allegiance” clause, but when electing Presidents it should definitely be applied.

I found the Canadian naturalization oath:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.[11]

I guess since there’s no renunciation of other allegiances statement it’s good enough.