CNN has Cruz ahead 2 points now.
Click on the link and look at the graph, Cruz is surging while low energy, no stamina granny is tanking.
Has granny recovered from the debate yet?
So much for Cruz getting blown out by an old hag who can't even get out of bed!
Cruz will get DESTROYED by Hillary. She was in the bathroom, taking extra time PRAYING that Cruz is the nominee. The gutless coward is now using his children as a campaign tool. No morals whatsoever.
I received a campaign Letter from the slime. It sounded like Casper wrote the copy. No attempt to even try to appeal to a normal person. I contribute a taped penny in reply, and hope the asshole staffer who has to open my reply enjoys it and wastes alot of campaign money sending me out another one.
Granny has lost at everything she's tried and anything she achieved (her last name, first lady, senator, Sec of State) was handed to her on a silver platter. She didn't have to do a damn thing.
Now she's arrogant enough and her party stupid enough to think people will automatically crown her queen.
Ted Cruz is 50x smarter than this stupid cackling witch and would destroy her.
Cruz is rising, the beast is tanking. The trend is his friend.
CNN has Cruz ahead 2 points now.
Click on the link and look at the graph, Cruz is surging while low energy, no stamina granny is tanking.
Has granny recovered from the debate yet?
So much for Cruz getting blown out by an old hag who can't even get out of bed!
Trump is getting all the attention right now. If Cruz got the nomination......it was be a bloodbath for him. It's hysterical that you think he's so smart. He's been caught lying almost as much as you. How smart can he be?
as trump said " he's a maniac"
hes trailing in every other poll but you point to one. Classic Joe
In 2014, the gaystream media caricature of Cruz started out 13 points behind Hillary, which of course is why you two clowns thought at the time she would "destroy" him.
But as I have said from the beginning, gaystream media caricatures of candidates they don't like only because of their ideology, are not political reality. Now that people have actually seen him, Cruz has done nothing but rise in every poll.
The latest head-to-head poll has him leading granny 48/46. That margin will grow as more people see and hear the real Ted Cruz.
Any notion Cruz would get "destroyed" in a general election is more liberal wishful thinking we've grown accustomed to.
But as I have said from the beginning, gaystream media caricatures of candidates they don't like only because of their ideology, are not political reality. Now that people have actually seen him, Cruz has done nothing but rise in every poll.
The latest head-to-head poll has him leading granny 48/46. That margin will grow as more people see and hear the real Ted Cruz.
Any notion Cruz would get "destroyed" in a general election is more liberal wishful thinking we've grown accustomed to.
Polling Data
"unelectable"
ointer:
| Poll | Date | Sample | MoE | Clinton (D) | Cruz (R) | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 12/2 - 12/21 | -- | -- | 45.8 | 45.0 | Clinton +0.8 |
| CNN/ORC | 12/17 - 12/21 | 927 RV | 3.0 | 46 | 48 | Cruz +2 |
| Quinnipiac | 12/16 - 12/20 | 1140 RV | 2.9 | 44 | 44 | Tie |
| FOX News | 12/16 - 12/17 | 1013 RV | 3.0 | 45 | 45 | Tie |
| PPP (D) | 12/16 - 12/17 | 1267 RV | 2.8 | 45 | 43 | Clinton +2 |
| NBC/WSJ | 12/6 - 12/9 | 849 RV | 3.4 | 48 | 45 | Clinton +3 |
| USA Today/Suffolk | 12/2 - 12/6 | 1000 LV | 3.0 | 47 | 45 | Clinton +2 |
| CNN/ORC | 11/27 - 12/1 | 930 RV | 3.0 | 50 | 47 | Clinton +3 |
| Quinnipiac | 11/23 - 11/30 | 1473 RV | 2.6 | 47 | 42 | Clinton +5 |
| MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist | 11/15 - 12/2 | 2360 RV | 2.0 | 51 | 44 | Clinton +7 |
| FOX News | 11/16 - 11/19 | 1016 RV | 4.0 | 41 | 45 | Cruz +4 |
| PPP (D) | 11/16 - 11/17 | 1360 RV | 2.7 | 46 | 44 | Clinton +2 |
| McClatchy/Marist | 10/29 - 11/4 | 541 RV | 4.2 | 53 | 43 | Clinton +10 |
| Quinnipiac | 10/29 - 11/2 | 1144 RV | 2.9 | 43 | 46 | Cruz +3 |
| MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist | 8/26 - 9/9 | 1115 RV | 2.9 | 52 | 41 | Clinton +11 |
| PPP (D) | 8/28 - 8/30 | 1254 RV | 2.8 | 47 | 42 | Clinton +5 |
| McClatchy/Marist | 7/22 - 7/28 | 964 RV | 3.2 | 49 | 40 | Clinton +9 |
| PPP (D) | 7/20 - 7/21 | 1087 RV | 3.0 | 48 | 40 | Clinton +8 |
| FOX News | 6/21 - 6/23 | 1005 RV | 3.0 | 48 | 42 | Clinton +6 |
| PPP (D) | 6/11 - 6/14 | 1129 RV | 2.9 | 48 | 42 | Clinton +6 |
| CNN/Opinion Research | 5/29 - 5/31 | 1025 A | 3.0 | 52 | 43 | Clinton +9 |
| Quinnipiac | 5/19 - 5/26 | 1711 RV | 2.4 | 48 | 37 | Clinton +11 |
| FOX News | 5/9 - 5/12 | 1006 RV | 3.0 | 48 | 43 | Clinton +5 |
| FOX News | 4/19 - 4/21 | 1012 RV | 3.0 | 47 | 42 | Clinton +5 |
| Quinnipiac | 4/16 - 4/21 | 1353 RV | 2.7 | 48 | 41 | Clinton +7 |
| CNN/Opinion Research | 4/16 - 4/19 | 1018 A | 3.0 | 60 | 36 | Clinton +24 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 4/9 - 4/12 | 1000 LV | 3.0 | 47 | 38 | Clinton +9 |
| FOX News | 3/29 - 3/31 | 1025 RV | 3.0 | 48 | 42 | Clinton +6 |
| PPP (D) | 3/26 - 3/31 | 989 RV | 3.1 | 49 | 43 | Clinton +6 |
| ABC News/Wash Post | 3/26 - 3/29 | RV | 4.0 | 56 | 39 | Clinton +17 |
| McClatchy/Marist | 3/1 - 3/4 | 514 RV | 4.3 | 53 | 39 | Clinton +14 |
| Quinnipiac | 2/26 - 3/2 | 1286 RV | 2.7 | 48 | 38 | Clinton +10 |
| PPP (D) | 2/20 - 2/22 | 691 RV | 3.7 | 50 | 40 | Clinton +10 |
| CNN/Opinion Research | 12/18 - 12/21 | 1011 A | 3.0 | 60 | 35 | Clinton +25 |
| Bloomberg | 12/3 - 12/5 | 753 LV | 3.6 | 46 | 33 | Clinton +13 |
| Quinnipiac | 11/18 - 11/23 | 1623 RV | 2.4 | 48 | 37 | Clinton +11 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 6/14 - 6/15 | 1000 LV | 3.0 | 50 | 37 | Clinton +13 |
| McClatchy/Marist | 4/7 - 4/10 | 518 RV | 4.3 | 54 | 39 | Clinton +15 |
| PPP (D) | 3/6 - 3/9 | 1152 RV | 2.9 | 51 | 40 | Clinton +11 |
| FOX News | 3/2 - 3/4 | 1002 RV | 3.0 | 52 | 36 | Clinton +16 |
| McClatchy/Marist | 2/4 - 2/9 | 490 RV | 4.4 | 56 | 39 | Clinton +17 |
| PPP (D) | 1/23 - 1/26 | 845 RV | 3.4 | 47 | 41 | Clinton +6 |
| Quinnipiac | 1/15 - 1/19 | 1933 RV | 2.2 | 50 | 35 | Clinton +15 |
| CNN/Opinion Research | 12/16 - 12/19 | 950 RV | 3.0 | 57 | 39 | Clinton +18 |
| PPP (D) | 12/12 - 12/15 | 1316 RV | 2.7 | 49 | 41 | Clinton +8 |
| Quinnipiac | 12/3 - 12/9 | 2692 RV | 1.9 | 50 | 37 | Clinton +13 |
| McClatchy/Marist | 12/3 - 12/5 | 497 RV | 4.4 | 57 | 35 | Clinton +22 |
| Quinnipiac | 11/6 - 11/11 | 2545 RV | 1.9 | 51 | 36 | Clinton +15 |
| PPP (D) | 10/29 - 10/31 | 649 RV | 3.8 | 50 | 33 | Clinton +17 |
| Quinnipiac | 9/23 - 9/29 | 1497 RV | 2.5 | 54 | 31 | Clinton +23 |
| Monmouth | 7/25 - 7/30 | 850 RV | 3.4 | 48 | 32 | Clinton +16 |
"unelectable"
ointer:You are wrong all the time. Because Trump is in the field.....these debates are being watched like never before on the republican side.....which gives Cruz more exposure. Without trump.....most voters wouldn't even know who Cruz is. Once the stage gets less people....he gets more attention and people get more scared of him.
If Hillary had a choice of who to run against.....Cruz would be on top of the list.
Stick to hanging literature on door knobs
I amused people who supported and support Obama have the courage to still talk politics
they were categorically incorrect about everything save the election results, when the lowest income demographics carried their day
wrong about every policy, everything in life and just living life itself
and while their idiocy has brought pain and suffering to so many, their lazy aloof unprepared lying cock sucking president vacations in HI celebrating a golf shot
ignorance is bliss
they were categorically incorrect about everything save the election results, when the lowest income demographics carried their day
wrong about every policy, everything in life and just living life itself
and while their idiocy has brought pain and suffering to so many, their lazy aloof unprepared lying cock sucking president vacations in HI celebrating a golf shot
ignorance is bliss
"I amused," huh? Yeah, ignorance IS bliss, Witless Willie, and you prove it every single day. "they were categorically incorrect about everything save the election results," ROTFLMAO!!! Yeah, there was THAT little detail, huh? Sucks to be an arrogant, always wrong dinosaur, doesn't it?cheersgifSlapping-silly90))Loser!@#0kth)(&^:hahahahah:laughingb:nohead:
Op-Ed [h=1]Is Ted Cruz a 'natural born Citizen'? Not if you're a constitutional originalist.[/h]
Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz interact during the CNN Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas on Dec. 15.
(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)
Thomas Lee
Article II of the Constitution states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Donald Trump thinks Sen. Ted Cruz is not a “natural born Citizen” and that he is therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president. Is Trump right? Cruz was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada, to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father. As to his Article II status, it's all in how you read the Constitution.
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, which is 1788.
People looking to the Supreme Court to settle the debate once and for all are likely to be disappointed.- [FONT=trb_Icons]
Under either a textualist or a “living Constitution” theory, Cruz is a “natural born Citizen,” eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn't. It's the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.
To an originalist, a “natural born Citizen” is a person who is a citizen of the United States under “natural” principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child's citizenship flowed from the parents' allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.
The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father's country. 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.
The upshot is that to an originalist, someone like Cruz — born in a foreign country (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus soli) and to a Cuban citizen father (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus sanguinis ) — is not eligible to be president.
Hold the 'birther' controversy: Ted Cruz is a natural born American
In a textualist view of the Constitution, historical context is also important because “natural born Citizen” has no modern plain meaning and the words don't appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Textualists, by contrast to originalists, favor written statutes in mining historical context. In this case, two American laws enacted in 1784 and 1790 are applicable, along with older English statutes which use the similar words “natural born subject.”
In 1784, the Maryland Legislature extended “all the Immunities, Rights and Privileges of natural born Citizen” to the Marquis de Lafayette “and his heirs Male forever.” And, in 1790, Congress passed a law stating that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” It didn't specify which parent, mother or father or both, but the background principle of jus sanguinis leads to the conclusion that it referred to American fathers.
The 1790 statute, however, was not intended to address presidential eligibility. Rather, like earlier English statutes that referred to “natural born subjects,” it exempted children born abroad from the need to follow any other procedures (“to naturalize”) in order to be considered citizens. Then in 1940, Congress passed a statute dispensing with the need for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother to naturalize.
Taken all together, these laws would cause a textualist to conclude that Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother in 1970, is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president.
Finally, living constitutionalists would interpret “natural born Citizen” in accordance with present circumstances and social conditions. Supreme Court case law is their main source because judicial decisions reflect an accommodation of legal doctrine with contemporary reality.
http://www.latimes.com/newsletters/la-newsletter-opinion-signup-page-htmlstory.htmlGet your free weekly take on the most pertinent, discussed topics of the day >>
But the Supreme Court has never directly decided the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” Today, a living constitutionalist would likely regard the ancient, sexist patrilineal rule governing the citizenship of a child born abroad as an anachronism. To a living constitutionalist, anyone born anywhere to a U.S. citizen mother or father would qualify to run for president.
People looking to the Supreme Court to settle the debate once and for all are likely to be disappointed. The federal courts have repeatedly refused to allow voters to bring lawsuits disqualifying presidential candidates on the basis of the “natural born Citizen” clause because voters don't have the proper “standing”— their alleged injury is too generalized to justify a court order of relief.
But voters do have recourse: The ballot box may be the final arbiter of the constitutional meaning of the clause. In other words, if you are an originalist, vote against Cruz because he is ineligible to be president.
It's a neat irony: The most conservative constitutional interpreters must find Cruz ineligible to be president; liberals must grin and bear him. Cruz himself purports to embrace originalism as the correct view of the Constitution. To be faithful to his understanding of what the Constitution means, the senator may have to disqualify himself
[/FONT]
(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)
Thomas Lee
Article II of the Constitution states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Donald Trump thinks Sen. Ted Cruz is not a “natural born Citizen” and that he is therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president. Is Trump right? Cruz was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada, to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father. As to his Article II status, it's all in how you read the Constitution.
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, which is 1788.
People looking to the Supreme Court to settle the debate once and for all are likely to be disappointed.- [FONT=trb_Icons]
Under either a textualist or a “living Constitution” theory, Cruz is a “natural born Citizen,” eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn't. It's the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.
To an originalist, a “natural born Citizen” is a person who is a citizen of the United States under “natural” principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child's citizenship flowed from the parents' allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.
The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father's country. 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.
The upshot is that to an originalist, someone like Cruz — born in a foreign country (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus soli) and to a Cuban citizen father (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus sanguinis ) — is not eligible to be president.
In a textualist view of the Constitution, historical context is also important because “natural born Citizen” has no modern plain meaning and the words don't appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Textualists, by contrast to originalists, favor written statutes in mining historical context. In this case, two American laws enacted in 1784 and 1790 are applicable, along with older English statutes which use the similar words “natural born subject.”
In 1784, the Maryland Legislature extended “all the Immunities, Rights and Privileges of natural born Citizen” to the Marquis de Lafayette “and his heirs Male forever.” And, in 1790, Congress passed a law stating that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” It didn't specify which parent, mother or father or both, but the background principle of jus sanguinis leads to the conclusion that it referred to American fathers.
The 1790 statute, however, was not intended to address presidential eligibility. Rather, like earlier English statutes that referred to “natural born subjects,” it exempted children born abroad from the need to follow any other procedures (“to naturalize”) in order to be considered citizens. Then in 1940, Congress passed a statute dispensing with the need for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother to naturalize.
Taken all together, these laws would cause a textualist to conclude that Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother in 1970, is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president.
Finally, living constitutionalists would interpret “natural born Citizen” in accordance with present circumstances and social conditions. Supreme Court case law is their main source because judicial decisions reflect an accommodation of legal doctrine with contemporary reality.
http://www.latimes.com/newsletters/la-newsletter-opinion-signup-page-htmlstory.htmlGet your free weekly take on the most pertinent, discussed topics of the day >>
But the Supreme Court has never directly decided the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” Today, a living constitutionalist would likely regard the ancient, sexist patrilineal rule governing the citizenship of a child born abroad as an anachronism. To a living constitutionalist, anyone born anywhere to a U.S. citizen mother or father would qualify to run for president.
People looking to the Supreme Court to settle the debate once and for all are likely to be disappointed. The federal courts have repeatedly refused to allow voters to bring lawsuits disqualifying presidential candidates on the basis of the “natural born Citizen” clause because voters don't have the proper “standing”— their alleged injury is too generalized to justify a court order of relief.
But voters do have recourse: The ballot box may be the final arbiter of the constitutional meaning of the clause. In other words, if you are an originalist, vote against Cruz because he is ineligible to be president.
It's a neat irony: The most conservative constitutional interpreters must find Cruz ineligible to be president; liberals must grin and bear him. Cruz himself purports to embrace originalism as the correct view of the Constitution. To be faithful to his understanding of what the Constitution means, the senator may have to disqualify himself
[/FONT]
[h=2]"I apologize to the millions of New Yorkers that have been held down by liberal policies in New York City"[/h]Texas Sen. Ted Cruz apologized to New Yorkers Friday—for the indignities they have suffered under “liberal policies.”
dbanana0-9
Scott Olson—Getty Images
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks to guests at a town hall event hosted by the Conservative Leadership Project on January 15, 2016 in Columbia, South Carolina. Cruz is campaigning in the state after participating in a Republican presidential debate yesterday in North Charleston.dbanana0-9
Here's what Ted Cruz meant by "New York values":
In New York, You Could Be Fined $250K for Failing to Use a Transgender Person’s ‘Preferred’ Pronoun
http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/06/i...-use-a-transgender-persons-preferred-pronoun/
CA and NY are beyond insane.
In New York, You Could Be Fined $250K for Failing to Use a Transgender Person’s ‘Preferred’ Pronoun
http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/06/i...-use-a-transgender-persons-preferred-pronoun/
CA and NY are beyond insane.
'[h=1]'Natural Born' Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled and Not Going Away[/h]Natural Born' Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled and Not Going Away
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/natural-born-issue-ted-cruz-not-settled-not-going-away-n499226
by PETE WIL
Republican presidential candidates (L-R) Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speak during the Republican presidential debate a on Jan.14, 2016 in North Charleston, South Carolina. Scott Olson / Getty Images
While the nation's legal scholars differ over the exact meaning of the Constitution's requirement that a person must be a "natural born citizen" to become president, they're unanimous in saying Ted Cruz is wrong about an important point.
"As a legal matter, the question is quite straightforward and settled law," Cruz has said. "People will continue to make political noise about it, but as a legal matter it is quite straightforward."
Related: Cruz on White House Eligibility: It's Settled Law
In fact, the experts say, it is neither settled nor straightforward.
It's not settled — because the Constitution does not define "natural born," a phrase that appears in the nation's founding document only once.
And though the federal courts have chewed on it from time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court has never officially said what it means.
It's not straightforward — because at the time the Constitution was written there were different ideas about what the phrase meant and competing legal theories about where the power to confer citizenship came from.
The meaning of the term is so unsettled that scores of constitutional experts have been writing about it in the weeks since Donald Trump made it an issue in the 2016 campaign.
Related: Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen? Ask the Founders
To review, Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, where his Cuban father was working at the time. But Cruz's mother was an American citizen, so under US immigration law, that made him an American citizen, too.
So he is citizen, yes, but does the Constitution require something more to be natural born? If not, why was the term there in the first place, instead of providing simply that a person had to be born a citizen?
The simple answer is, it's impossible to know for certain. The founders devoted little time to discussing it. One day the term wasn't in the draft Constitution. The next day it was, and that was just about that.
The emerging consensus of the legal experts, however, is that being "natural born" means becoming a citizen at the moment of birth, as opposed to achieving it later through the process of naturalization.
"Natural in natural born doesn't mean biological. It means naturally, that is automatically, happening without any further intervention," said Constitutional law Professor Jack Balkin of Yale Law School.
And what could confer citizenship at birth? Clearly, being born in the United States, a concept familiar to the founders, who were well aware that anyone born in a place under control of the crown was a natural born British subject.
But the founders also knew that the British parliament could declare someone born abroad to British parents a "natural born subject."
The Constitution gave Congress that same authority through the power of naturalization, said Professor Michael Ramsey, of the University of San Diego School of Law.
Like the power British Parliament had, the congressional authority "includes both the power to establish rules for naturalizing foreign citizens on an individual basis and the power to declare categories of persons citizens by circumstances of their birth."
By the time Cruz was born, U.S. immigration law granted birthright citizenship to the child born overseas to at least one American citizen parent who had been living in the United States for a designated time.
Other experts, however, have said it's not so clear cut. Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard noted that, when the Constitution was written, citizenship passed through the father.
"Having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient."
Trump has repeatedly said Cruz himself could get this issue settled simply by going to court and asking for a decision.
But Trump is wrong about that.
"Cruz can't just go to federal court for a declaratory injunction without some plausible claim that he's in danger of government action being taken against him," said Yale's Balkin.
One lawsuit has already been filed over the issue, by a retired federal prosecutor in Texas who claims to be suing on behalf of all registered voters. It will almost certainly be thrown out. The courts don't normally permit lawsuits claiming such a diffuse and abstract claim of injury.
But if a county or state official somewhere refused to put Cruz's name on the ballot, concerned he's not natural born, then Cruz could sue, and the issue would be squarely before the courts.
Federal judges then would be required to delve into the same history and struggle with the same issues that have animated legal experts over the Trump-Cruz controversy.
They will confront, said San Diego's Ramsey, a clause of the Constitution that is "mysterious and ambiguous."
And anything but settled.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/natural-born-issue-ted-cruz-not-settled-not-going-away-n499226
by PETE WIL
Republican presidential candidates (L-R) Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speak during the Republican presidential debate a on Jan.14, 2016 in North Charleston, South Carolina. Scott Olson / Getty Images
While the nation's legal scholars differ over the exact meaning of the Constitution's requirement that a person must be a "natural born citizen" to become president, they're unanimous in saying Ted Cruz is wrong about an important point.
"As a legal matter, the question is quite straightforward and settled law," Cruz has said. "People will continue to make political noise about it, but as a legal matter it is quite straightforward."
Related: Cruz on White House Eligibility: It's Settled Law
In fact, the experts say, it is neither settled nor straightforward.
It's not settled — because the Constitution does not define "natural born," a phrase that appears in the nation's founding document only once.
And though the federal courts have chewed on it from time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court has never officially said what it means.
It's not straightforward — because at the time the Constitution was written there were different ideas about what the phrase meant and competing legal theories about where the power to confer citizenship came from.
The meaning of the term is so unsettled that scores of constitutional experts have been writing about it in the weeks since Donald Trump made it an issue in the 2016 campaign.
Related: Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen? Ask the Founders
To review, Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, where his Cuban father was working at the time. But Cruz's mother was an American citizen, so under US immigration law, that made him an American citizen, too.
So he is citizen, yes, but does the Constitution require something more to be natural born? If not, why was the term there in the first place, instead of providing simply that a person had to be born a citizen?
The simple answer is, it's impossible to know for certain. The founders devoted little time to discussing it. One day the term wasn't in the draft Constitution. The next day it was, and that was just about that.
The emerging consensus of the legal experts, however, is that being "natural born" means becoming a citizen at the moment of birth, as opposed to achieving it later through the process of naturalization.
"Natural in natural born doesn't mean biological. It means naturally, that is automatically, happening without any further intervention," said Constitutional law Professor Jack Balkin of Yale Law School.
And what could confer citizenship at birth? Clearly, being born in the United States, a concept familiar to the founders, who were well aware that anyone born in a place under control of the crown was a natural born British subject.
But the founders also knew that the British parliament could declare someone born abroad to British parents a "natural born subject."
The Constitution gave Congress that same authority through the power of naturalization, said Professor Michael Ramsey, of the University of San Diego School of Law.
Like the power British Parliament had, the congressional authority "includes both the power to establish rules for naturalizing foreign citizens on an individual basis and the power to declare categories of persons citizens by circumstances of their birth."
By the time Cruz was born, U.S. immigration law granted birthright citizenship to the child born overseas to at least one American citizen parent who had been living in the United States for a designated time.
Other experts, however, have said it's not so clear cut. Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard noted that, when the Constitution was written, citizenship passed through the father.
"Having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient."
Trump has repeatedly said Cruz himself could get this issue settled simply by going to court and asking for a decision.
But Trump is wrong about that.
"Cruz can't just go to federal court for a declaratory injunction without some plausible claim that he's in danger of government action being taken against him," said Yale's Balkin.
One lawsuit has already been filed over the issue, by a retired federal prosecutor in Texas who claims to be suing on behalf of all registered voters. It will almost certainly be thrown out. The courts don't normally permit lawsuits claiming such a diffuse and abstract claim of injury.
But if a county or state official somewhere refused to put Cruz's name on the ballot, concerned he's not natural born, then Cruz could sue, and the issue would be squarely before the courts.
Federal judges then would be required to delve into the same history and struggle with the same issues that have animated legal experts over the Trump-Cruz controversy.
They will confront, said San Diego's Ramsey, a clause of the Constitution that is "mysterious and ambiguous."
And anything but settled.
