Share This Article with a Friend!


CHQ 2016 GOP Presidential Straw Poll: Week 11

It's never too early to start thinking about the 2016 presidential election. While you may change your mind later, tell us who you'd like to see as the GOP nominee this week. ConservativeHQ.com's Weekly GOP Presidential Straw Poll is available exclusively to registered CHQ members. To register, click here. If you are already a member, please log-in by clicking here. You may vote once a week. Review the choices FIRST before adding a write-in candidate as we made additions.

GOP Candidates for Presidential Poll 
MY CHOICE FOR THE 2016 REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
THIS WEEK IS:
Choices

Login to vote in this poll.

SOLUTION TO DILEMMA

We need to run Sarah Palin! She has the charisma to win! She can beat Hilary Clinton. So debate the Cruz eligibility all you want. He can be VP. The solution is to get a ticket that can win. Palin/Cruz

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. How much longer can our country survive the destroying of our Constitution before you get the above? Get behind this ticket and spin it to a win!

Congressional Research Service: Ted Cruz Not Qualified

How can a child born abroad of one U.S. citizen parent qualify when two citizen parents are required?

The question was answered by the CRS in 2004

In 2004 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a document titled “The Constitution of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation”, and subtitled “Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002”.

The entire portion of the document dealing with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution (Presidential Qualifications) is contained in two pages of a 2300 page document.

Interestingly, there is no mention of several important cases decided by the Supreme Court in which the meaning of “natural born Citizen” was addressed or discussed by the court in its rulings, including the well-known Minor v Happersett case and the Venus case, in which Justice Livingston quotes directly from Vattel on the definition of “natural born Citizen”. The analysis offered deals entirely with the issue of “whether a child born abroad of American parents is a ‘natural born citizen’ in the sense of the clause” in the Constitution.

However, there is still some value to be derived from this CRS analysis.

The article begins by noting that all presidents since Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence (not having been aware in 2004 of the true status of Chester Arthur as probably born in Canada of a non-U.S. citizen father, as a result of which Arthur burned all of his personal papers prior to his death in an apparent effort to conceal the truth of his lack of presidential eligibility).

This brief article goes on to make reference to the Naturalization Act of 1790 in which the following language appears:

“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea…shall be considered as natural born citizens”(emphasis added).

Drawing a connection with British statues governing “natural born subjects”, the writer comments:

“There is reason to believe therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.” (emphasis added)

The clear implications of this sentence are that, as of the year 2004, the CRS had concluded not that persons born abroad of U.S. citizen parents are definitively include in the class of “natural born citizens, but only that “there is reason to believe” that such is the case, and then only if the parents (two parents) are U.S. citizens.

Nothing in this analysis even suggests that a child born abroad of one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent could be included in the class of “natural born citizens” for whom eligibility for service in the office of president of the United States would be satisfied.

For those who would argue that somehow the Fourteenth Amendment (which does not even contain the words “natural born citizen” and was adopted to address the problem of the citizenship of the former slaves) altered the intent and requirements of the presidential qualification clause of Article II of the original Constitution, a footnote is offered which discourages this line of thinking.

The problem of resolving an issue arising from a provision of the original Constitution by reference to an amendment of that same document is articulated in the following sentence :

“Reliance on the provision of an amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by, but is strongly militated against by, the language in Freytag v. Commissioner…in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of ‘Heads of Departments’ in the appointments clause.”

So now we know that the Congressional Research Service concluded in 2004 that a child born abroad of parents (two parents) who are themselves U.S. citizens may be considered a “natural born citizen” and thus eligible for the presidency.

We also know that any presidential eligibility argument based on the language of the Fourteenth Amendment (in which the citizenship status of the former slaves was resolved) is quite unlikely to be able to demonstrate any logical connection of that Amendment to, or bearing on, Article II presidential qualifications; nor is it likely that the Supreme Court would even consider the Fourteenth Amendment to be relevant in a presidential eligibility case.

That leaves us with a puzzling question.

Just how is it that one can argue that Senator Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country (Canada) of a non-U.S. citizen father, can qualify as a candidate for the presidency under the requirements of Article II that he be a “natural born citizen”?

It seems quite clear that Ted Cruz cannot qualify as a candidate for the presidency.

Presidential poll

People, please think about the person you are advocating. Bush, Palin, Perry, Ryan, Santorum, and West are UNELECTABLE. It's not a matter of who you like. I like Sarah as much as anyone, but she couldn't win the presidency if the country's life depended on it, and it just might. Republicans have to be smart for once. They've already forgotten that in 2008 the country in general wanted healthcare reform. They still do, they just don't like what the Dems rammed down their throat. Without a replacement plan, Repubs will do themselves no favor by simply repealing Obamacare. The Dems are winning the battle right now because the Repubs rely too much on their hearts and not enough on their brains. Wise up or brace yourself for Hillary.

PALIN IS ELECTABLE

Sarah Palin is more popular (ie. charismatic)than any Republican candidate! And if you don't think charisma is important just look at who is in office now. Did he get there because he was brillant? Sarah is a woman who can defeat Hilary Clinton and can pull votes from her. I think a Palin/Cruz ticket is a winner. Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Wake up Republicans. Think about winning for a change!!!

Palin

Are you kidding me! Palin is the next Reagan. We don't want a replacement plan. You are brainwashed. Let the free markets work. Regulations is the problem for health insurance. If another moderate is our nominee the 3 million turns into 6 million and we lose. Stop drinking the GOP kool aid!

Palin

Are you kidding me! Palin is the next Reagan. We don't want a replacement plan. You are brainwashed. Let the free markets work. Regulations is the problem for health insurance. If another moderate is our nominee the 3 million turns into 6 million and we lose. Stop drinking the GOP kool aid!

Sarah Palin is a traitor to the Tea Party

Does anyone at CHQ notice how John McCain has been doing more to help Obama with his ugly schemes than almost any Democrat in Washington? (Except, perhaps, the self-admittd Democrat who ran as a Repubican, John Hoeven of ND.) One would have thought, after the miserable hash he made of the 2008 campaign, that Arizona, under constant pressure at the border, would have thrown him out. THey nearly did. J.D. Hayworth was giving him a serious challenge, and was ahead in the polling. You recall that he was the Tea Party challenger. Then, when it looked like sanity was about to prevail, in came Alaskan Sarah Palin, a deus ex machina, to endorse and stump for McCain! Some gummy brains try to excuse this as her "debt" to him for rescuing her from her ice floe in Alaska and exploiting her on his ticket. There is little doubt that she brought him most of the votes he got. Well, if that's to be our take on this breach of faith with the Tea Party, and the betrayal of Hayworth, its chosen candidate, let's just say that America is paying her debt. We're paying her debt. Frankly, every time I see a photo of McCain with AlQaeda, every time I hear him making a pitch to grab our guns or open up our borders,I think "Sarah Palin". But for Sarah Palin there would no longer be a John McCain in our Senate. I think Hayworth's votes would have done credit to the Tea Party. McCain's cast shame on Palin. We need a candidate with better judgment and a bigger view than the pathetic Sarah Palin.

What's your point?

1. Your post is meaningless if you don't say who your perfect, smart, electable man is? So. Who's your candidate? IOW, on whose behalf are you trying to clear the playing field?

2. Actually yes, for the vast majority of voters, it is about who they like. You may not like the reality, I may not like the reality but since 1960, the more telegenic, likable candidate wins. That's why Reagan, the former actor, who knew how to be likable on camera, won so overwhelmingly against BOTH parties' establishment wishes.

The reality is that Obama did not win for his smarts or his resume. He won because people liked him. They still do. Yes, of course, racism is involved as well. But neither McCain or Romney were very likable or telegenic next to Obama. W. Bush won because he was more likable than either Gore or Kerry. For that reason, I don't think Jeb will win because he's not likable. Neither is Hillary.

Palin is likable. AND she has a solid record and a constitutional mindset.

So again. Who is your perfect, electable, smart, likable candidate?

agree with jwagner

I believe Sarah Palin would be as great as Ronald Reagan if she became president. She doesn't evolve or continually change her convictions like many others do. I think even those who do not agree with all of the things that she believes in, would rather vote for someone that they can trust to be herself and stand by her principles rather than wonder if the nominee will stand for anything once they are elected.

Sarah doesn't put on airs or play politics. She can be trusted.

Sarah Palin

America doesn't need a Rhodes Scholar or even a Harvard man for president. America needs a president overflowing with integrity and honesty. America needs an American for president who has already proved having these attributes. America needs Sarah. Wake-up Americans!

Ted Cruz is not a "natual born Citizen"

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen" as is required by the U.S. Constitution to serve as president. He was born in Canada and his father was not a U.S. citizen. He insists that he is a U.S. citizen, but he evades the clear importance of the constitutional provision requiring the president ot be a "natural born citizen" - that is one who is "born in the country of parents who are citizens". This is the definition provided by Vattel in "The Law of Nations", one of the principal reference works used by the Founders of this nation at the Constitutional Convention, along with Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".
Vattel:

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

U.S. Supreme Court:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
Ted Cruz's name should not be included on any list of potential candidates for president due to his indisputable lack of eligibility. Nor should the names Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum be included. None of these individuals are natural born citizens. Inclusion of the names of ineligible candidates is an insult to Americans who believe strongly that respect for the Constitution is an essential requirement for preservation of the rule of law in this nation. Moreover, inclusion of ineligible individuals in a presidential poll distorts the process and undermines the very purpose of conducting such a poll.

Ted Cruz is NOT Eligible.

Democrats can get away with running a candidate who is not eligible under the Constitution. Why? Because THEY do not believe in the Constitution. To them it is a yellowed old parchment that has been discarded because it is too "restrictive" -it doesn't give them permission to do what they want. It is merely an inconvenience to them - not the law of the land.

So why can't Republicans run an ineligible man and just say he's "eligible" on his own say-so? Because to us the Constitution is the Law of the Land. If it says "natural-born citizen" that means something. If it were not important, the Constitution would have said "legal citizen". It did not. It was very specific that the president be a "natural-born" citizen. This, logically, would apply to a Vice Presidental candidate as well.

Ted Cruz is a talented, intelligent man. His life experience is enriching. He professes a dedication to our Constitution. His skills and genius could be so hugely valuable to America in so many other, though less glamorous, roles. He could be our greatest ever Attorney General. He could be a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He could be Speaker of the House (the present Speaker is an example of why we need a great speaker - Congress has been an impotent rag-doll under Boehner). He could do so much of such profound importance if he would only place his adoptive country above his own career. His failure to do so is an indcation of a fatally flawed character. He is looking like a mere opportunist. He should not be under consideration for the presidency.

Birther Alert!

Sounds like another alarmist aligning with Donald "Paranoid" Trump. You're exerting a lot of effort to respond to a poll that you believe is diminished in value and insulting. And what "process" are you talking about? The only purpose that this poll serves is one of entertainment. It's not an official poll of the party.

Even Rand Paul agrees that Cruz is eligible: "You won’t find me questioning his eligibility. I decided a long time ago I wouldn’t be a birther. I’m not a birther for Democrats. I’m not a birther for Republicans." (See http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/14/rand-paul-im-not-a-birther-video/). He's a smart man who knows the Constitution. Trump? Not so much.

Troll alert!

Using the pejorative term "birther" does not make me wrong, nor does it alter the requirements of the Constitution.
When I was in school, every school-boy knew that one must have been born in the U.S. and have citizen parents to be eligible for the presidency. Just because Obama got away with forgery, election fraud, and usurpation of the presidency does not mean that the requirements of the Constitution have somehow been changed.
The Supreme Court was quite clear about what those requirements are in its reference to the constitutional term "natural born Citizen" in Minor v. Happersett.
Rand Paul did not say that Cruz is eligible. He just said that he does not want to get dragged into the presidential eligibility issue. It would only serve to confuse his message and attract attacks from the low information voters and the idiots on the left who will spare no effort to discredit a viable conservative candidate.
This web site and the presidential poll it is hosting are not insignificant. It purports to be the "headquarters" of the conservative segment of American society. As such, it has a duty and an obligation to insure that its positions, and by implication its polls, reflect conformance with the provisions and requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Ineligible candidates like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum have no business being included in any presidential poll, much less in a poll on a conservative web site. This is equivalent to nominating a player from the CFL to the Pro Bowl.
Or like awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a nobody who has never accomplished anything of any significance, who is using a false identity, and whose background and true origins are completely unknown.
Call me a "birther" if you like - it's getting a bit like how liberals are constantly throwing out the "racist" charge. It is a transparent Alinsky tactic and it no longer has any significant effect.

Are You More American Than Cruz or Perhaps Elitist?

From HotAir.com (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/14/rand-paul-on-whether-ted-cruz-is-a...):
"Why shouldn’t a child born abroad inherit American citizenship from a parent who’s a citizen? What’s the logic for denying that kid dual-citizen status and then letting him choose which nation to commit to once he’s of age? I can imagine circumstances in which a citizen’s loyalty to the U.S. is deemed questionable due to the circumstances of what they’re doing abroad — e.g., if they’re working for a foreign government — but if you relocated for, say, business reasons and you choose to accept all of the obligations that come with remaining a U.S. citizen, why should that status be withdrawn from you or your kid? Defining “natural born” as “born on U.S. soil” means that Cruz somehow would be perfectly okay if his mother had crossed back into the U.S. the day before he was born, gave birth here, and then took off back to Canada the day after. Rationally, how would that give us any more confidence about his loyalty to America than him being born in Calgary and then moving to America as a kid?"

The Constitution is not about who is "more American"

The Constitution is about establishing a system of governance which will protect what was achieved only with enormous personal sacrifices by its founders and drafters, and that will stand the test of time. It is not about any individual or about defining who is "more American".

The constitutional provisions relating to presidential eligibility were included for a specific purpose, as articulated by John Jay in his famous letter to General Washington. That purpose was to protect the presidency from foreign influence.

There is simply no point in arguing the "logic" of any of the provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution is the charter of our nation and it is not subject to debate except in serious organized debate relating to proposals for amendment to it. Arguing the logic of the Constitution is like arguing the proscriptions against homosexuality and adultery in the Bible. It is the law of God - end of argument.

The meaning of "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous rulings, catalogued by constitutional attorney Mario Apuzzo at his web site. It was also clearly articulated by Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, in a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. This has been well-documented.

So do me a favor and learn something about American history before engaging in ad hominem attacks on this forum.

Really?!?

The Constitution is not 100% clear on this issue, but you'll never fully admit to that, which is fine. We weren’t present at the drafting of the Constitution. Yes, there are Constitutional law experts (I’m married to one) who interpret it differently. For every "expert" you cite, there are twice as many who agree that Cruz is a full citizen and is eligible.

I taught American History in a conservative school district and come from a long line of award-winning teachers, and even a published historian. Your assumption that I don't know the Constitution or history is an ad hominem attack on me, so you've fallen into your own trap here, sir. Quick, reply so you can get the last word!

The last word

Nobody said Ted Cruz is not a "full citizen" (whatever that means). He is just not a "natural born Citizen".
One test of the integrity of an intelligent person is is the degree to which that person honors and respects the language without playing word games. Clinton and Obam fail that test repeatedly, as do you.

If the Constitution is not 100 per cent clear on the intent of the presidential eligibility provisions in Article II, it is only because it was assumed by the drafters that all Americans knew what was meant by the term "natural born Citizen". (In John Jay's hand-written letter to General Washington, the word "born" was underlined.)

Any lack of clarity on this point by the drafters was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, as well as in several other cases. For example, the Court quoted Vattel in the Venus case as follows:

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In the Venus case [(THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)], Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire 212nd paragraph from the French edition (of Vattel's "Law of Nations"), using his own English, on page 12 of the ruling:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
"The citizens are members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society, not being able to subsist and perpetuate itself but by the children of its citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it..."
Reference: FOUR SUPREME COURT CASES DEFINE "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52966220/4-Supreme-Court-Cases-Define-Natural-...
Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

The Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military has so much domestic and foreign power that we can understand why Barack Obama would say before the 2008 election that the United States was only five days away from “fundamentally transforming” America. A narrow interpretation of the “natural born Citizen” clause is therefore warranted given its purpose and the enormous powers given to the President. They saw the “natural born Citizen” clause as a means by which to preserve and perpetuate the new republic by making sure as best they could that future presidents were faithful and loyal only to the United States and its republican principles.
The Founders and Framers knew that the nation would be populated by many persons from foreign lands who would bring with them foreign ideas, cultures, customs, and loyalties. But for the sake of preserving and perpetuating the new republic, they also expected the person who was to assume the great and singular civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in Chief, be born in full and complete political and military allegiance and jurisdiction to the U.S. and free of any monarchical and foreign influence and allegiance to any other nation. To accomplish their goal, they would have used a citizenship clause that had a well-defined meaning and left no room for doubt.

For the Founders and Framers, it was all about allegiance and so they applied the “natural born citizen” concept as a basis to assure the President’s and Commander in Chief’s absolute and sole allegiance and loyalty from birth to the nation. In England, becoming King was hereditary and not tied to citizenship. A “natural born subject” who had no royal blood could never become King. The English therefore had no need to impose any strict safeguards for who could become a “natural born subject” for the sake of protecting the “office” of King.
But in the new America, a constitutional republic with a representative form of government, the President was going to be elected from among its citizens. Hence, electing someone who the people could trust became critical. It only stands to reason that the Founders and Framers would eventually demand that the President, who was given both the highest executive civil and military power, hold the highest form of citizenship available. And that is what they did for those children born after the Constitution was adopted in 1787. While persons born before that date could because of necessity be “Citizens of the United States,” those born after that date had to be “natural born Citizens.” Indeed, Justice Story explained that the status of being a “citizen of the United States” as being sufficient to be eligible to be President “has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct.” The highest form of citizenship would be one bestowed upon a child who under the law of nations was born with sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States, i.e., not born subject to any foreign power. The only way a child could be so born was to be born in the United States to “citizen” parents. Being born under such birth circumstances (jus soli and jus soli united and producing allegiance and citizenship only in the United States), the child would inherit U.S. citizenship from each one of his parents and acquire it from U.S. soil.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=the+venus

Nope.

Continuing to cite the same person and text over and over doesn't make it correct. Conservative experts say you're wrong and Cruz is eligible. What's the reason behind all of your questionable anti-Cruz rhetoric? It brings forth the question, are you even a conservative? We'll never really know.

More from the "Cruz is eligible" plethora of experts, in today's "Human Events:"

"The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president. MOST LEGAL SCHOLARS who have studied the question AGREE that INCLUDES an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz."

"...There’s nothing in the Constitution that would bar him from service as the President, provided he meets the legal definition of a “natural-born citizen of the United States,” which he most certainly does.

The requirements are quite simple, and both Cruz and his mother demonstrably meet them. She spent the required amount of time living in the United States, after her birth in Delaware. Under the rules in effect at the time of the Senator’s birth in 1970, nothing else is required for a child born on foreign soil to a married American mother or father to acquire automatic U.S. citizenship. Neither Ted Cruz nor the government of the United States has ever legally asserted that he was anything but a natural-born American citizen.

The only thing left of this “controversy” is the phantasmagorical allegation that Cruz must formally renounce an equally automatic Canadian citizenship he has never used, even though the Constitution does not require it. Have we become so accustomed to looking for “penumbras and emanations” in the Constitution? We’re supposed to toss out the really important parts of the Constitution and the Founders’ writings like so much rubbish, whenever the government wants to assert new powers over our lives… but on the matter of Ted Cruz’ eligibility for President, we must parse every syllable until we develop migraine headaches, staring at the white space between words until new requirements appear.

What’s the endgame for the Cruz citizenship critics? Forcing him to spend a hundred bucks and shuffle paperwork for a few months to formally renounce his unused but automatic Canadian citizenship? It’s more likely that you’re teeing up an awesome “Why I Am An American” speech from Cruz.

None of this is happening in a vacuum, of course. There’s the long, turgid drama over the Obama birth certificate – a drama produced with no small degree of cooperation from President Obama, whose stubborn arrogance dragged things out for years. Maybe some of the Ted Cruz “citizenship controversy” is meant as payback. It also fits into the swiftly-escalating campaign of personal destruction leveled against Cruz, which says more about the danger he represents to the Left than the amount of time he’s spending in Iowa and New Hampshire these days."
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-american/

Yep

A conservative believes in fealty to the United States Constitution.

Article II of the Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born Citizen".

A "natural born Citizen" must have two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his or her birth. This was confirmed in a 2004 report of the Congressional Research Service. (See separate comment)

Ted Cruz does not meet that requirement.

Our failure to insist on conformance with the Constitution, going back to the early part of the last century with the fraudulent expansion of the income tax, fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, the unconstitutional creation of the Federal Reserve System, and abandonment of the gold standard resulting in a fiat currency in violation of the Constitution, led us to the mess we have now with a federal government monster that operates virtually without any constitutional restraints whatever.

If the Constitution is not honored in every respect, it is not honored at all, and is soon ignored. That is where we are now.

All of your sophistry does not change the simple fact that neither Barack Obama nor Ted Cruz have two parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of their birth. This is the very reason that Chester Arthur burned all of his personal papers prior to his death. He had a non-U.S. citizen father at birth, and was very likely born in Canada. He knew that he was never eligible for the presidency, but was determined to insure that these facts would never come to light.

In Ted Cruz we have a potential modern-day Chester Arthur.