CNN ran an article last week by Professor Gabriel J. Chin, explaining why Texas Senator Ted Cruz is eligible to be President. For those of you who don’t know, there is some concern over whether or not he is a “natural born citizen”, because he was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen, but his father was a Cuban citizen.
So, in the opinion of this legal scholar, someone who was born in a foreign country still qualifies as a natural born citizen, even if born in another nation, as long as their mother was a citizen. We’ve been over this before, but it bears repeating.
And so once again, I must ask the question: why didn’t the press mention this any of those times when people were alleging President Obama was ineligible because he had been born in Kenya? That would have been a much better way of counter-acting the so-called “birther” conspiracy than anything else. Where Obama was born never even mattered from a legal perspective.
I don’t remember any CNN articles pointing this out when they talked about the conspiracy theory. I mean, the conspiracy stuff is ridiculous enough as it is, but when you throw in the fact that even if it were all true, it is totally unimportant, that would make them look really bad. And yet, nobody seems to have bothered to consult any legal experts when the questions were raised about Obama.
Chester A. Arthur, “the Canadian born president” was said be a very honourable president. 😀
You could take Prime Minister Harper & his Harperites, many of us in Canada are tired of the Tar Sand Party of Canada.
Good point. More candidates should point to Arthur’s record when these sort of accusations come up.
Hey if the media brought that point up it would be an honest debate, can’t have that.
I thought I was so cynical about political journalism that nothing would surprise me anymore, but for some reason this really irritates me.