Will the Natural Born Citizen Requirements for President Haunt GOP Candidates in 2016?

oped: Just food for thought...is this the reason the GOP Congress fails to Impeach Obama...they want to keep their proverbial heads in the sand and turn a blind eye to the Constitution /Bill of Rights? 

by:Suzanne Hamner 

Most everyone is familiar with the saying, "two wrongs don't make a right." What this commonly refers to is that violating a law, ethic or moral, is justified as long as someone else does. For example, an employee embezzles from his employer because his employer is cheating on his taxes. Both are clearly wrong and in violation of the law; but one precedent of wrong-doing by one does not make it acceptable to engage in additional wrong-doing or the same wrong-doing by another. It becomes a fallacy that the actions cancel each other out.   

For the past six years, Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the office of the president has been questioned on the "natural born citizen" requirement. And, many debate what constitutes a "natural born citizen." While some may disagree, "natural born citizen" refers to a person, regardless of birth location, born to citizen parents in some sources; whereas, other sources follow natural law meaning the individual, regardless of birth location, follows the citizenship of the father to be classified as "natural born." Either way, this brings into question the eligibility of Obama to even seek the office much less occupy the office of the presidency. It is known that Obama's alleged mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a US citizen; but, Obama's Kenyan father, as listed on his "legal" birth certificate, has never been proven to be a US citizen through naturalization.

So, the Democrats put forth upon the American people a candidate whose eligibility was questionable under the "natural born citizen" requirement. Using the saying, "two wrongs don't make a right," some Republicans are considering a 2016 presidential bid who do not meet the eligibility requirements to hold the office of the president according to the US Constitution.

It's been rumored that Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal considered throwing their hats into the bid for the Republican presidential nomination. However, neither are considered "natural born citizens" as their parents were not "naturalized" before either was born. Their fathers were citizens of other countries – Jindal, India and Rubio, Cuba – at the time of birth. While these two are not considered favorites or outstanding among more prominent or establishment Republican candidates, one Republican has the merits to challenge the more prominent establishment Republicans – Ted Cruz. 

At the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention, Cruz told "Breitbart News that he's 'very, very seriously' considering launching a presidential candidacy for 2016." According to Cruz, Democrats are likely to win in 2016 just as they did in the last two presidential elections unless a bold conservative wins the GOP nomination. While Cruz has garnered widespread support for his stance again certain unconstitutional issues, the real question centers around his eligibility. Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?
The answer is he is not. Rafael Cruz, Ted's father, did not become a naturalized American citizen until 2005. Ted Cruz was born in 1970 before his father became naturalized. Even though Cruz's mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth, his father was not meaning Cruz does not meet the definition of "natural born citizen." 

While many conservatives and Republicans support Cruz, are conservatives and Republicans willing to back a candidate with a "questionable" eligibility, just as the Democrats and liberals did with Obama? Is Cruz, himself, willing to put himself in the position of violating the "natural born citizen" requirement to seek the office of president? His serious consideration on launching a presidential run would suggest that he is.
America has been witness to the problems with a president who has questionable eligibility. Obama has certainly not demonstrated an allegiance to America – both where his citizenship and ideology are concerned. Are we to say that a questionable citizenship is palatable as long as the ideology is the same as ours? A citizen of the United States is not the same as a "natural-born citizen" and both are different from a naturalized citizen.

To support the requirement of President be extended to include "citizens" would be to promote "anchor" babies to occupy the highest office in our nation, regardless of the citizenship condition of the parents at the time of the child's birth. Even if that "anchor" baby's ideology is the same as a sect of the US population, do Americans really want to continue eating that can of worms the Democrats and liberals opened with Obama?
Have we all not already been witness to individuals in government who "slide" on the Supreme Law of the Land from both sides of the aisle? Do we not rale against those who violate our Constitution regardless of party or ideology?  

Ted Cruz has been a Senator who prides himself on knowing the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. His father, in his speeches, talked about how he taught his children the Constitution. But, it appears Cruz is willing to "pick and choose" the parts of the Constitution to stand behind instead of supporting it as a whole. The reason being a bid for the presidency as a "bold conservative."   

Are conservative and Republican Americans willing to wear the label "hypocrite" that they so generously apply to liberals in order to "put their man in?" Are conservative and Republican Americans willing to commit the same wrong as the Democrats and liberals in order to "counteract" a previous wrong? It appears that Cruz is receiving plenty of encouragement and support to make a run for the White House. As it stands, many conservatives and Republicans have no problem engaging in the same activities as liberals and Democrats.   

Granted, the Republicans considering throwing their hat into the ring for a presidential bid do not look promising. America certainly doesn't need Hitlery or another Democrat. Neither does America need a RINO or establishment Republican stooge. However, should the conservatives and Republicans of America toss out the Supreme Law of the Land just because someone else did it? Ask yourself this. "Would America be in as bad a shape today had Obama been properly vetted and the Constitutional requirements for a presidential run been enforced?" No one can say for sure. However, Obama would not have been president meaning certain problems being faced in this country today might not have occurred. As we all have seen, once someone who has questionable eligibility attains the presidency, they are not easily removed.   

Two wrongs don't make a right. If some conservatives and Republicans are willing to let the requirements for the office of president slide in order to elect "their man," can these people really call themselves conservatives and supporters of the Constitution?
Should Cruz throw his hat into the ring, it will be interesting to see how the Republican establishment, Democrats, Liberals, some conservatives and judges react when it comes to the eligibility of Cruz to run for office. If they do not allow Cruz the option to run based on the "natural born citizen" requirement, this presents a conundrum as the same situation was questioned with Obama. If they vet Cruz as eligible, it will mean the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution has been dissolved without so much as the passage of an amendment or a piece of legislation changing those requirements.

Being a "natural born" citizen does not preclude one from having an ideology antithetical to this nation's founding; but, it does satisfy one of the requirements expressed in the Constitution in order to hold the office. While Ted Cruz garners avid support and admiration among some Americans, the Constitution is our law. If we are so willing to abandon the law for beautiful, exhilarating speech, and follow up one wrong with another, then, America deserves a future based on the whims of man instead of the rule of law.