Tag Archives: President

Harvard Law Review: Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and is eligible to become President

Donald Trump with his buddies, the Clintons - I think that's Trump's third wife on the right
Donald Trump and his third wife pose with his radical leftist Democrat friends

Donald Trump has been questioning whether Ted Cruz is eligible to run for President because he was born in Canada. I thought it might be worth it to look at the circumstances of Cruz’s birth, then get an opinion from some legal experts.

So as far as I can tell, there are 3 people on the planet who think that Cruz is not eligible to run for President. Donald Trump, Rand Paul and Ann Coulter, a famous celebrity comedian who supported Mitt Romney, and now supports Donald Trump. She is very fond of getting attention by saying outrageous things, which she later claims are “jokes”. This week, she wanted to have the Republican governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, deported. She later said she was joking.

Ted Cruz’s mother was born in the USA

So, let’s start with the facts:

Eleanor Darragh, mother of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), was born in Delaware on Nov. 23, 1934, establishing her citizenship by birth–and, according to U.S. law, that of her son, even though he was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, on Dec. 22, 1970.

You can look at her birth certificate on Breitbart News. This is the thing that all the birthers on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground denied the existence of, until it appeared. There is no doubt that Ted Cruz’s mother is an American citizen, and she met the residency requirements to pass on birthright citizenship to baby Ted.

Ted Cruz’s mother passes the residency requirement to pass on birthright citizenship

Former assistant U.S. attorney, and law professor Andrew McCarthy explains in National Review:

Under the law in effect when Cruz was born in 1970 (i.e., statutes applying to people born between 1952 and 1986), the requirement was that, at the time of birth, the American citizen parent had to have resided in the U.S. for ten years, including five years after the age of fourteen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, easily met that requirement: she was in her mid-thirties when Ted was born and had spent most of her life in the U.S., including graduating from Rice University with a math degree that led to employment in Houston as a computer programmer at Shell Oil.

Ted’s mother registered baby Ted with the U.S. Consulate in Calgary. Cruz moved back to the USA when he was 4 years old. Cruz was able to get a U.S. passport to travel abroad in 1986. The U.S. government does not hand out U.S. passports to non-citizens.

A legal opinion from the Harvard Law Review

Now, I didn’t think this topic was worth writing about. It was actually my friend Robb who urged me to do it.

Robb sent me this article from the Harvard Law Review, which is what made me decide to go ahead and write about it.

The article is written by two experts in the law:

Neal Kumar Katyal is an American lawyer and chaired professor of law. He served as Acting Solicitor General of the United States from May 2010[2] until June 2011… Katyal was the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center and the lead counsel for the Guantanamo Bay detainees in the Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. While serving at the Justice Department, he argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court.

Paul Drew Clement is a former United States Solicitor General and current Georgetown University law professor. He is also an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on March 14, 2005 for the post of Solicitor-General, confirmed by the United States Senate on June 8, 2005, and took the oath of office on June 13. Clement replaced Theodore Olson. Clement resigned on May 14, 2008, effective June 2, 2008, and joined the Georgetown University Law Center as a visiting professor and senior fellow at the Supreme Court Institute.

The article says:

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

“Natural born” means no naturalization process. Ted Cruz’s mother was a citizen by birth. She meets the residency requirements to pass on birthright citizenship. We have her birth certificate. We also have Ted’s birth certificate with her name on it as his mother. This ends the issue for all the people who are governed by reason and evidence.

Ted Cruz wins Fox Business #GOPDebate, Fiorina and Rubio outperform

Texas Senator Ted Cruz
Texas Senator Ted Cruz

I think Cruz did the best, Rubio did well enough to take second place, and Fiorina was much improved, especially on foreign policy, where she gave a clear explanation of the doctrine of peace through strength. She did third best, but had the strongest moment of the debate when she schooled everyone on foreign policy. She really knows foreign policy cold.

Red State does a good job of providing unbiased opinion, here is their assessment:

The Winners

1. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) – While Cruz hit his talking points and made some great statements, like Jeb, he did not stand out. This isn’t as big a problem for him as it is the others, because he has a natural base of conservative voters that will turn out for him no matter what. Bush doesn’t have that, and that’s why he’s free-falling at his point. Cruz coming out swinging against the agriculture lobby could very well be his testing the water for corn subsidy talk in Iowa.

2. Carly Fiorina – Carly showed why she should not be counted out yet. She speaks like a caring grandmother, and she has to be the calmest neoconservative I’ve ever seen on a stage speaking about the Middle East. She spoke calmly and coolly on every issue that came her way, and some issues that didn’t. She cannot yet be counted out.

3. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)  – Rubio did not hurt himself tonight by any stretch of the imagination. He let Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) ruffle his feathers a little bit, but I think he overall hit his notes correctly. He is clearly courting the warhawks of the Republican Party right now. He hit on his family background only once, focusing instead on global affairs and fighting back against Paul.

They thought Carson and Trump did OK, and Kasich, Paul and Bush “lost”. I think that Carson and Paul did OK, but Trump and Bush underperformed, and Kasich did the worst of all. Trump just has no ability in foreign policy, Bush is too liberal on immigration. Kasich is a big government liberal across the board.

Over at the more establishment Weekly Standard, Jonathan Last – who is a bit wild – said this:

Ted Cruz: If you were forced to pick a winner, it would probably be Cruz. He picked the right fights—with Kasich and Paul. He gave a dynamite explanation of how illegal immigration impacts wage growth and was generally impressive. With each passing debate he looks more like a finalist.

Marco Rubio: This performance wasn’t as strong as his last. Rubio started out talking vocational training and the nexus of family stability, virtue, and economic growth—basically the Santorum 2012 playbook.

Carly Fiorina: She probably had the single strongest moment of the night in her blistering, detailed, canny riff on how she would approach Putin. If she’s going to get a third-look from voters, tonight might prompt it.

Ted Cruz attacks Hillary Clinton’s failed policies:

Ted Cruz says no to bank bailouts, yes to FDIC reimbursing depositors:

Jeb Bush vs Ted Cruz on illegal immigration and LEGAL immigration:

Marco Rubio on the importance of strong families:

Marco Rubio vs Rand Paul on tax credits for families and defense spending:

Carly Fiorina on Putin and foreign policy:

Carly Fiorina on American entrepreneurship:

Ben Carson on the minimum wage:

Finally, there is the latest episode of the Weekly Standard podcast, which is my favorite political podcast, the one you should subscribe to if you subscribe to any. Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, thought that it was a good night for Ted Cruz. I agree.

I also love the Ben Shapiro podcast from the Daily Wire, and I am updating the post now to point to a new episode – episode 24. Shapiro agrees with me: Christie AND Jindal won the undercard debate, and Cruz did the best in the main event.

I spend the night reading and re-tweeting on Twitter – sorry to everyone for the huge number of tweets. What was striking to me was the juvenile nature of the Democrat tweets. Many of them came from professional comedians or Hollywood celebrities… but others came from liberal politicians, and even people from liberal think tanks. Yet not ONE tweet from the left was anything of substance. It was all just dismissive mocking. Literally. Not one serious tweet. It’s not surprising that they are so supportive of a clueless clown who added $10 trillion dollars to the national debt, and point that achievement as a great success. Oh well, that’s why we have elections. I would be happy with any of Jindal, Cruz or Rubio right now. I would even take Fiorina in a pinch.

One final thing. Fox Business put on the fairest and most engaging debate yet. They set the standard for everyone else, and made CNBC look like incompetent college students. Every debate should run this smoothly – the moderators just disappeared, and they let the candidates talk to America, and talk to each other. I learned a lot about the candidate’s views, and nothing at all about the moderator’s views.

Caffeinated Thoughts endorses Bobby Jindal because of his accomplishments

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Caffeinated Thoughts is run by Shane Vander Hart, a Christian blogger who is also interested in politics. Shane’s post goes over many of Jindal’s accomplishments.

In this post, I discuss 5 areas:

  1. Defense of natural marriage
  2. Cutting the size and scope of government
  3. Defending the lives of unborn children
  4. Defending the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns and defend themselves from criminals
  5. Simplified, fair tax plan that favors job creation

The endorsement says:

Caffeinated Thoughts is proud to endorse Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for President of the United States.

Governor Jindal has an impressive resume by any standard, but considering he is 44-years-old it is truly remarkable. Graduating from Brown University as a double major with honors at the age of 20, Jindal went on to study as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University where he would later earn his master’s degree. Jindal, at the age of 24, was appointed head of Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals. He was later appointed by President George W. Bush as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. He served two terms representing Louisiana’s 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives after which he was elected Governor of Louisiana and is currently serving his second term.

Let’s start with the most important accomplishment:

Jindal speaks of a seven-year long spiritual journey that began while he was in high school, and, at Brown University, culminated in a personal faith and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He freely speaks of the realization that he had that Christ died for sin not in some generic way, but for him and his sin personally. He points to the time of that realization as the “most important moment in my life.” Having such a clear profession of faith in Christ is something that we are pleased to see in a presidential candidate.

Jindal also makes it plain that his faith is not something that he keeps put away except for Sundays. His worldview is built upon his faith, and his governance is guided by his worldview. An example of that is his support of the Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act, in which protections would be given to individuals or businesses who oppose same-sex marriage. A number of corporations opposing the bill expressed their disapproval to him, but his reply was firm: “They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me.”

Shocking. His religious convictions actually inform his policies.

Jindal is the only governor in the race to cut spending – and none of the non-governors were able to cut spending, since Obama would have vetoed any cuts in borrowing or spending.

According to the Cato Institute, of the governors that were or still are GOP candidates for the presidential nomination, Jindal is the only one that has actually cut spending in his state. Cato Budget Analyst Nicole Kaeding wrote this: “Louisiana general fund spending has fallen during Bobby Jindal’s tenure as governor. At a time when states were increasing spending, Jindal instituted reforms that cut the state workforce and lowered per capita spending. This feat makes Jindal unique among Republican contenders for the presidency.” We are confident that when Jindal says he intends to reduce federal spending, he will succeed in getting it done. He has a unique credibility in that regard.

Cutting spending is good, but so is being solid on defending the lives of the unborn:

Louisiana, under his leadership, was named by Americans United for Life as the most pro-life state in the nation six years in a row. He has signed numerous pro-life bills as Governor that led to his state’s status. In light of recent videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s involvement in harvesting fetal body parts for profit, Jindal ordered an investigation of Planned Parenthood. He also rescinded Medicaid contracts his state had with the abortion provider that fully defunded Planned Parenthood of all taxpayer funds that provided a model for governors in other states to follow. He has stood and fought in federal court over his decision, and we applaud the fortitude he has shown that is unfortunately rare among many governors and in Washington, DC.

He’s willing to fight for the pro-life cause. Unlike many of the talk-only candiates in the GOP primary. And as far as self-defense goes, he’s solid on that – which is a good thing, since the Democrats seem to be very committed to releasing criminals, and not cracking down on sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes, then take refuge in them:

With Jindal at the helm, Louisiana has consistently been graded an A+ by the National Rifle Association. As Governor he signed legislation that strengthened Louisiana’s stand your ground and castle doctrine laws. In 2012 Louisiana also passed its own constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. As a member of Congress, Jindal received the NRA’s Harlon B. Carter award for working to address gun confiscations that took place in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in order to prevent them from happening again.

And he is solid on tax rate reduction and simplification, as well as spurring job creation by cutting taxes on job creators:

For instance, his tax plan also has a unique feature: Everyone will pay some taxes. To use his words, everyone “will have skin in the game.” Jindal’s website says this: “The idea that half of American wage earners would pay no taxes at all only reinforces the fact that we are creating two classes in America, the tax paying class and the dependent class. Instead of fewer people paying more taxes, more people should pay fewer taxes.” We heartily agree with this approach.

Jindal’s three-tiered personal income tax plan is both simple and fair. At the same time, his plan eliminates corporate income tax, making corporations globally competitive, encouraging investment in business expansion, and brings jobs and wealth back home from abroad.

The article also notes that Jindal is the only candidate running who has a detailed plan to replace Obamacare, and since Jindal’s background is in health care policy, we can assume that he will achieve the goals he achieved when he reformed health care policies in Louisiana. The article did not mention Jindal’s work in improving school choice and improving education in Louisiana, but it can’t cover everything on his resume. Still, if you like accomplishments, Jindal is your candidate. He is everything that Obama was not in 2008.

I feel sorry for candidates like Scott Walker, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal. These are the 3 candidates who actually have a record of achieving the things they talk about in campaign speeches. What I mean by that is that all 3 took action, and the action had an effect, and we can see the positive results. There is one other great conservative candidate: Ted Cruz. He would lead in a conservative direction if elected, I have no doubt. But Trump and Carson have neither the record of conservative accomplishments of Jindal, nor the proven record of conservative advocacy of Ted Cruz. And why are American voters so willing to vote for two people who don’t have the achievements and results to point to?

Scott Walker: eliminate NLRB, enact national right-to-work, ban federal public sector unions

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

I hope that by the end of this post, everyone will consider whether it makes more sense to elect someone who says they will do something conservative as President that they have already done in their state, as Governor.

The story is from the Daily Caller.

Excerpt:

Republican presidential hopeful Scott Walker promised Monday to go far beyond what he did to rein in union power in Wisconsin if elected to lead the country.

The plan includes eliminating the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), eliminating federal employee unions and implementing a national right-to-work law. It will also do away with federal workers being allowed to do union work on taxpayer time.

[…]The plan would go far beyond the career defining reforms Walker pursued in 2011 during his first term as governor of Wisconsin. The changes to labor policy in the state, known as Act 10, mostly just outlawed mandatory union dues for state public employees.

[…]Critics have argued the NLRB unfairly benefits unions, often at the expense of employers and their workers. This includes changes to union elections, contracting and the franchise model. Walker also promised to outlawmandatory union dues for all public and private workers. A policy known as right-to-work.

[…]Walker also plans to end the policy which allows government workers to do union work on taxpayer time. The practice is known as “official time” on the federal level.

“In 2012, taxpayers subsidized 3,395,187 hours of ‘official time’ time spent working for the union or lobbying,” Walker noted. “That cost the taxpayers $156 million.”

“While the IRS was busy harassing conservative organizations they also had more than 200 federal employees whose only work was for the big government union bosses,” Walker continued. “How about the Department of Veterans Affairs? While more than 600,000 veterans were facing delays for medical care in the VA system, more than 250 federal employees.”

There’s no question in my mind that Walker has the strongest record of activism as a fiscal conservative in the GOP primary. He is only proposing to do at the federal level what he already has done at the state level. No other candidate has the record of past performance that Walker has. Been there, done that – wrote a book about it. It’s very important that we get the public sector unions out of politics, because they are always pushing for bigger and bigger government, which means higher taxes for you and your children. And of course the unions are pro-abortion and anti-natural-marriage. By the way, workers like right-to-work: a recent Gallup poll found that non-union workers are happier with their work than forced-unionized workers.

I expected Walker to do this if he were elected President, which is why he was my first choice for so long. (He is now #2, behind my #1 pick Bobby Jindal) It’s a shame that he had to tip his hand, because it will make it harder for him to win in the general election, now. I really think I might have to put him back in as my #1 choice because I think that getting rid of NCLB and public sector unions would be such an Earth-shattering conservative move. This truly would be on the level of some of the radically leftist policies that Obama pushed for. I trust Walker to do what he says, because of his record of achievement in Wisconsin along these same lines. This is not just talk.

People should have understood what they were getting in Scott from his past record, but I fear that many Republican voters (not evangelicals, of course) are not looking into the candidates’ backgrounds. They are being swayed by charismatic talk from leftist clowns like Donald Trump. They should be looking for proven leaders who have made good things happen at the state level – as governors, preferably.

By the way, Walker is one of one three candidates who has a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. The other two are Jindal (of course) and Rubio.

Related videos

Anyway, for the rest of this post, I want to include a few short, 5-minute, videos on capitalism and unions. These are all from Prager University, and I hope they help you to understand why you need to support the free enterprise system, and oppose public sector unions.

George Mason University professor of economics Walter Williams on “Is Capitalism Moral?”:

Entrepreneurship guru George Gilder on “Why Capitalism Works”:

City College of New York professor of political science Daniel DiSalvo on how unions influence politics:

Stanford University professor of political science Terry Moe on how teacher unions oppose the interests of students:

Please look into these issues, and consider supporting either Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal or Ted Cruz for President in the general election. These guys understand economics, and will get good things done if elected President.

Related posts

Scott Walker presidential announcement speech: video and transcript

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Video posted by the left-wing Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Transcript is here courtesy the left-wing Time magazine.

His central themes:

Americans want to vote FOR something and FOR someone.

So let me tell you what I’m for: I’m for Reform. Growth. Safety.

I’m for transferring power from Washington to the hard-working taxpayers in states all across the country. That’s real reform.

I’m for building a better economy where everyone can live their piece of the American Dream. That’s pro-growth.

I’m for protecting our children and grandchildren from radical Islamic terrorism and other threats in the world. That’s true safety.

Let’s look at his achievements, since that’s the only thing we can really know about the candidates. You can watch the whole speech to see what he promises, but I only care about what he has already done.

Cut spending and lowered taxes:

Since I’ve been Governor, we took on the unions and won.

We reduced taxes by $2 billion and lowered taxes on individuals, employers and property. In fact, property taxes are lower today than they were in 2010. How many Governors can say that?

Since I’ve been Governor, we passed lawsuit reform and regulatory reform. We defunded Planned Parenthood and enacted pro-life legislation. We passed Castle Doctrine and concealed carry. And we now require a photo ID to vote in the State of Wisconsin.

Education reform:

Today, people elected by local taxpayers actually get to run the schools. Our reforms ended seniority and tenure. Now we can hire and fire based on merit and pay based on performance. We can put the best and the brightest in the classroom.

Four years later: our graduation rates are up, third grade reading scores are higher and Wisconsin’s ACT scores are now second best in the country.

Welfare reform to reduce dependency:

In Wisconsin, we enacted a program that says that adults who are able to work must be enrolled in one of our job training programs before they can get a welfare check. Now, as of the budget I just signed, we are also making sure they can take a drug test.

Health care reform:

First, we must repeal ObamaCare. That’s right, repeal the so-called Affordable Care Act entirely and put patients and families back in charge of their health care decisions – not the federal government.

As Governor, I approved Wisconsin joining the lawsuit against ObamaCare on my first day in office. We need a President who – on the first day in office – will call on Congress to pass a full repeal of ObamaCare.

Reduce red tape and bureaucracy:

Next, we need to rein in the federal government’s out-of-control regulations that are like a wet blanket on the economy. Yes, enforce common sense rules – but don’t add more bureaucratic red tape.

In Wisconsin, I called for an overhaul of Wisconsin’s regulatory process on my first day as Governor. We can do the same in Washington, then we can act to repeal Obama’s bad regulations.

School choice, including homeschooling:

In Wisconsin, we reformed our public schools and gave families as many quality choices as possible because I trust parents to make the right decision for their children. I believe that every child deserves access to a great education – be it in a traditional public, charter, choice, private, virtual or home school environment.

His domestic policy will be all about federalism: transferring tax revenue and decision-making away from Washington, D.C. down to the state level, down to the local level, down to individual families, down to individuals. It was federalism all the way. Get the money and the power out of Washington, let the people make their own decisions. The second half of the speech was on national security and foreign policy.

When I compare and contrast this speech with the speeches of Hillary Clinton, it’s night and day. She has no achievements, she has no accomplishments. She hasn’t done anything. Walker is different – he can talk about the things he has done, and anyone can see that he’s actually done it. Let’s elect someone who knows what he is doing this time.

Related posts