[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/7/16

[RuthAlice Anderson]

Regarding Muller’s article on Cruz’s eligibility, while I personally believe he is eligible and would be happy to have an amendment allowing naturalized citizens such as Arnold Schwartzeneggar also be allowed to run (as was once a popular idea on the right before he lost his luster).

I am baffled that so much was made of Obama’s eligibility while so little is made of Cruz’s situation. After all, no one disputes Obama’s mother was an American citizen. Meanwhile, many asserted he was born in Kenya so therefore ineligible, but why would Kenya be more disqualifying than Canada? 

The argument defending his eligibility was that he was born in Hawaii, hence all the birth certificate nonsense. 

The plurality of opinion at that time seemed to be if Obama were not born in Hawaii, if his birth certificate was fake, then he would be ineligible. That was presented as given in the media. So what has changed in eight years?





> Derek Muller: Who Decides If Ted Cruz is Eligible to Be President? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78791>
> Posted on January 7, 2016 10:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78791> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> Here’s a deep dive guest post from Derek Muller <https://law.pepperdine.edu/faculty-research/faculty/?faculty=derek_muller>:
> 
> Earlier this week <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-cruzs-canadian-birth-could-be-very-precarious-for-gop/2016/01/05/5ce69764-b3f8-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.html>, Donald Trump suggested that Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace could be a problem in the event he became the Republican presidential nominee. He followed that up with a call for Mr. Cruz to seek a declaratory judgment <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-advises-cruz-to-clarify-his-natural-born-citizenship-in-court/> in court that he is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to serve as president.
> 
> There is little dispute on the facts. Mr. Cruz was born to a Cuban father and an American mother in Canada. Aaron Blake at the Washington Post helpfully compiles <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/23/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ted-cruz-birther-movement/>some of the historical disputes about natural-born citizens, including recent commentary by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement in the Harvard Law Review Forum, On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen.” <http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/>
> This is a dispute on the merits—Mr. Trump now suggesting that Mr. Cruz is not eligible, Mr. Cruz insisting that he is eligible, and a question as to who is right. Consensus suggests Mr. Cruz is eligible, and the consensus offers quite a strong argument, but it is certainly not unanimous.
> 
> But there is an even deeper question that is often unexamined in this dispute—who gets to decide whether Mr. Cruz is eligible? A court? Professor Dan Tokaji has many thoughts on the most pressing barrier to such challenges, justiciability <http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=mlr_fi>.
> 
> Continue reading →
> 
>  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78791#more-78791>
> <share_save_171_16.png> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78791&title=Derek%20Muller%3A%20Who%20Decides%20If%20Ted%20Cruz%20is%20Eligible%20to%20Be%20President%3F&description=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160107/7c9bf2e7/attachment.html>