U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause

[Minimalist]

Did she actually relinquish her US Citizenship though? As far as I'm aware, there's a few steps you have to go through in order to do that. If she didn't do it, then whilst the Canadian government would have considered her only Canadian, the US government would have considered her a dual citizen. Dual citizenships are difficult in that respect; some countries respect them and others don't, and the rules only apply where you currently are. The Canadian government can't take away someone's US citizenship just because they don't recognise it, even if that person signed a statement to the Canadian government that they were giving up their US citizenship. As far as I'm aware, the US government is the only government that can accept such a statement.

It depends on how rigorous the Canadian checks were. Was she required to present a signed declaration that the US government no longer recognised her citizenship?

I agree that if she actually relinquished her US citizenship, Ted Cruz would undoubtably be a Canadian citizen with no actual right to be an American citizen, let alone be eligible for the Presidency. If it's true, then his entire political career has been illegal. Which is why I highly doubt it is true.

Besides, this just happened: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/03/11/penn...president/

Apparently not.  It seems to be an operation of law type of thing.

http://www.examiner.com/article/proof-th...n-at-birth

Ted's Father has publicly admitted he became a Canadian citizen in 1968. If his mother's first husband with surname of "Wilson" was also a Canadian citizen (unconfirmed), she would have become a citizen before his father. Even if her first husband was not Canadian, according to Canadian law, she would still have automatically become a Canadian citizen in 1969 after having a Canadian spouse (Ted's Father) and residing in Canada for 1 year. This information substantiates the reports claiming that both of his parents appeared on the Canadian voter's rolls. There is now an unconfirmed claim that someone has supposedly verified that they indeed both voted in the October of 1972 federal Canadian election.

If both of Ted's parents became exclusive citizens of Canada by 1969, then even if his mother tried to file a CRBA, she would not have been able to confer US citizenship to her son as she was no longer a US citizen herself. Even if she somehow retained US citizenship, Ted could not have been granted dual citizenship as it was against Canadian law. The only thing that is certain is that Ted Cruz automatically became a Canadian citizen the instant he was born on Canadian soil and that fact is absolutely irrefutable.

As for part II, I imagine we'll both be old and gray - (well, you'll be old and gray.....I'll be older and grayer!) before the appeals process is finished.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I believe they should be a natural born citizen.  I also think there should be added a requirement that they honorably served in the military, after all, Commander-in-Chief.

Hitler and Idi Amin were ex-military guys and look how that turned out for Germany and Uganda.  The only President who led troops in action while President was George Washington.  

A true natural born citizen is a person whose both parents were born in the US and who was also born in the US and no where else.  If the dummies who wrote the Constitution hadn't had their heads in their asses they would have written clear language instead of BS.  But since we don't have sense enough to re-write it that makes us the real dummies.

[Chas]

This issue arose in the 1964 Presidential race due to Barry Goldwater having been born in the Arizona Territory in 1909 -  before it became the state of Arizona in 1912.

[Minimalist]

 The only President who led troops in action while President was George Washington. 

That would not survive examination by Factchecker.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

 The only President who led troops in action while President was George Washington. 

That would not survive examination by Factchecker.

Have you forgotten the Whiskey Rebellion?

"With 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[Minimalist]

Here's an interesting development.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/law-professor...itizenship

A Washington, D.C. law professor has come up with a new way to challenge the eligibility of Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, to run for president.
Victor Williams is running for president himself.
He says that should help him get over the first hurdle that has so far caused other challengers to stumble — a lack of legal standing to sue.

The courts, gutless pukes that they are, have so far ruled that none of the other parties had "standing" to sue.

[Minimalist]

That would not survive examination by Factchecker.

Have you forgotten the Whiskey Rebellion?

"With 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Did you read that story?

In October 1794, Washington traveled west to review the progress of the military expedition. According to historian Joseph Ellis, this would be "the first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field".

Convinced the federalized militia would meet little resistance, he placed the army under the command of the governor of Virginia, Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee, a hero of the Revolutionary War. Washington returned to Philadelphia

If "leading an army in the field" means holding a few staff meetings and appointing someone to the command then I guess you are right but that is not my definition of being an army commander.  Lincoln was closer to the action when he attended McClellan's Grand Review in 1861 or when Jubal Early attacked Washington in 1864.

[Pat Mustard]

Here's an interesting development.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/law-professor...itizenship

A Washington, D.C. law professor has come up with a new way to challenge the eligibility of Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, to run for president.
Victor Williams is running for president himself.
He says that should help him get over the first hurdle that has so far caused other challengers to stumble — a lack of legal standing to sue.

The courts, gutless pukes that they are, have so far ruled that none of the other parties had "standing" to sue.

From reading the article, this jumped out at me:

Federal courts require that those going to court must show that they would suffer an injury that’s concrete and particular to them. Suing simply on the basis of being a citizen and a taxpayer isn’t enough.

How the fuck is allowing a man constitutionally ineligible to run for president not "an injury that's concrete and particular" to every US citizen?

Not that I'm saying that Cruz is ineligble. I have neither sufficient facts nor expertise to make a decision.

[scoobysnack]

It's ridiculous, but no one is making a big deal out of it, because the constitution is being shredded every day, sliver by sliver. To the point that constitutionalism are labeled extremists by the government.

[IATIA]

Personally, I think that all citizens should be allowed to become President, but much like the requirement that Presidents be older than 35, people who have gained U.S. citizenship via means other than birth should have held that citizenship for a number of years (e.g. 20) and also been a U.S. resident for the same period of time.

If we went that way, the 'new' citizens should have 35 years under their belt. The same as any natural born citizen.