Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Ted Cruz Exit 2016 White House Race: why a Canadian-born cannot be POTUS?

KEYWORDS OR TERMS: Naturalized American Citizen; Canadian-born Ted Cruz; Former Communist Rafael Cruz; Businessman Donald Trump; Constitutional Purist; Non-Constitutional Purist; Reagan Republicans; Bob Doyle Republicans; Former US House Speaker John Boehner; Path to Victory; Foreign born; Former Communist; Citizens of foreign country; Cleveland, Ohio; Us Constitution; US Protectorate; US Courts; Lewd and Unsavory Language

 The choices have been exhilarating for many Republicans seeking to find the right person as party flag bearer. The choice has been close to limitless, [Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, Scott Walker], about fifteen months ago, with close to eighteen aspirants seeking to be the right person for the job. Maybe the only difficult reality was that, one of these many can truly qualify to be the party’s nominee; and this time around, the prize goes to a businessman with little experience in American Politics, except you count his financing of other politicians into public offices in the past as an experience in party politics. This is probably one reason it is projected in the media that the presumptive Republican Party flag bearer, Donald Trump, maybe better off choosing a former rival and seasoned politician as his vice-president, John Kasich.

The competition has been a roller coaster for many of the Republican aspirants and for a while, it seemed the party may have to settle for a contested convention in Cleveland, Ohio; until the bomb shell late yesterday, when the second runner up to the nomination, Ted Cruz, a Canadian-born "naturalized" American, son of a former communist, Rafael Cruz, uttered the following sentences: “From the beginning I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory,” Cruz said, with his wife Heidi by his side. “Tonight I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed.” … “With a heavy heart but with boundless optimism for the long-term future of our nation, we are suspending our campaign.”

Some say those sentences ended a rather promising and better organized Republican Party campaign for party nomination, others say, it ended the national aspiration of the most loathed and extreme right conservative disgusting politician, who had no business running for party’s nomination in the first place, because of his poor relations with other lawmakers, in and outside his party; and many voters that have come across or in contact with him, attest to his  horribleness and ugliness as a person. His withdrawal or resignation from the race for the White House yesterday, reminded many of the words of the former speaker regarding this Canadian-born naturalized citizen, seeking to be the President of the United States: “I have Democrats friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.” A Lucifer in the flesh, you add, so sayeth the former US House Speaker, John Boehner!

The remarkable revision of the fortunes of a foreign born aspirant with about five hundred and ninety-two Republican delegates while seeking his party’s nomination and by default, White House oval office, robbed the nation of an opportunity to put to test the question, whether a foreign-born, naturalized citizen of the United States, whose qualifying one parent to his natural born citizenship test, was a disavowed American; probably a free-born Canadian, not US Citizen, at the time of his birth, an aspirant whose constitutional qualification to run as a candidate for the Presidency of the greatest democracy on earth, is still being questioned in some quarters. For strict US Constitutionalist, just like the disavowed foreign-born and probably disqualified exiting politician from the Republican nomination exercise, the idea has been settled, the constitution only permits Americans that were physically born on the soil or embassy of the United States, to become the president of the country. Yet for liberal interpretation of US Constitution, anyone born in a territory of the United States; and or, in a foreign country, with both parents, or one of the parents, citizen of the United State, qualifies to run and win the Presidency of the United States.

There is still a suit in US Courts challenging the constitutionality of the right of Ted Cruz to aspire to be President of the United States because of the murky waters surrounding the status of his qualifying naturally born parent. There is unproven repudiation of Ted Cruz’s chance of occupying the office of the Presidency, because of the recent renouncement of his Canadian citizenship and the burning question surrounding the citizenship of his qualifying parent. There are other questions regarding the true status of his qualifying parent, his mother; whether she was an American citizen at the time of birth of Ted Cruz; and or, if she had already renounced her US citizenship at the time of his birth? All these questions are probably belatedly unanswerable because no one can drag Ted Cruz to a Court of law and seek all the evidence to prove he is qualified to run for the US Presidency, because of his choice to opt out at this time. However, whenever else he chooses to run, many Americans will be interested to have those questions answered: Can an American citizen, who had barely given up his dual citizenship status, Canadian-US citizenship, in less than three years, whose records show he hardly renounced his Canadian citizenship until most recently, Constitutionally qualifies to run for the office of the President of the United States?

But since Ted Cruz saw himself as a candidate to lead the conservatives in the Republican Party to the promised land, it may not be quarrelsome, if we explore these questions consequentially, at this time. Had Ted Cruz been the Republican Party flag bearer or substantive choice of a major American Political Party, was he constitutionally qualified to seek the office of the US Presidency? A cold war had been simmering between pure constitutionalist and liberal interpreters of the US Constitution. Within the latter group, some skeptics of what the US Constitution really demands of an aspirant to the highest office in the land has quarried the veracity of Ted Cruz’s claim of the right to seek the office of the US presidency. Americans born in US territories like Panama, as in the case of Senator John McCain, qualified as US citizen because both of his parents were Americans at the time of his birth in a US territory or protectorate while on military assignment. The question arises again, had one of his parents not been an American citizen, and the qualifying parent was a free born of the US protectorate, just like an Islander from Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Island, or US Virgin Island, could he or she had qualified to run and occupy the office of the US Presidency?

The pressures of determining the Constitutional qualification of a person or aspirant seeking to run for the Office of the US Presidency will never abate, because of the loftiness and glory of occupying the office: It may just be likening to be the occupier of the highest office in the democratic free-world? The office carries so much power and influence that former occupiers have used the experience to rake in millions of dollars after leaving the office. To protect the constitutional provisions and the right of naturally born citizen to compete and win the office, it is imperative that the debate goes on. Constitutional scholars and non-constitutional scholars are interested in knowing in plain language, who qualifies to run and be elected the President and leader of the free world. The intransigencies or usurpation of right to run for the highest office in the land, by person or persons in the classification of Ted Cruz’s status, have the right to know, if they truly qualify or not. The information also has relevance to what the fore-fathers qualified as the true requirements of anyone seeking to head the nation they fought and died for, so the flag can shine from seas to shinning seas.

Strict Constitutionalists, attempt to break the bubble of those born outside the United States, either with one parent, being a foreigner; and or qualifying parent, who had renounced their American citizenship, before giving birth to a child who had resettled back into the county and failed to renounce his citizenship at birth; i.e. location of birth citizenship; until a few years before aspiring to run for the US Presidency. In Ted Cruz’s case, Canada is his origin of birth. At a glance, Ted Cruz appears to qualify to run for the presidency, if the claim that one of his parent was a free-born American citizen. The challenge for many, is that this citizen did not renounce his location of birth citizenship until recently, or until a time he felt it convenient to do so because of his possible aspiration to run for the office of the US President.

No one wants the aspirations of people like Ted Cruz to be dashed or dunce; however, no one wants an individual gaming the system. We all hold the office of the US Presidency in high regards, at least many of us, except for some few knuckle heads in the Republican Party that insisted on insulting the current occupier of the office over the past eight years. Ted Cruz’ run for the office in 2016, makes the issue of settling who the US constitution says qualifies to run and subsequently win and occupy the office, rather imperative. No aspirant wants to be outmatched by other citizens which the US Constitution says are not qualified to run let alone win the office. Every American genuinely wants to know, who the constitution says is qualified to run for the office, and what the pertinent requirements of the qualifications are, especially with respect to the location of birth of the aspirant. If one is not truly sure of what the constitution says about their birth or qualification for the office, it is imperative to seek advice of US constitutionalists or the Courts. Ted Cruz probably does not expect others to dig into his personal affairs until he showed an interest to run for the Office of the US Presidency. Also, Donald Trump, who had raised the issue of Ted Cruz’s qualification to run for the office and who incidentally, is the presumptive Republican nominee, also is interested to know whether his former rival, constitutionally qualified to have run; and what his chances could really had been, had he topped the party’s ticket and engaged in a general election in November, 2016.

The aspirations of the Canadian-born Ted Cruz for the highest office in the land raised other questions and probably a double jeopardy for executives of the Republican Party. First, if Ted Cruz had won the party’s nomination and was actively campaigning against Hillary Clinton, could she had used the murkiness of his birth against him; and, precipitate a long drawn out litigation that could have eclipsed the overall chances of the party as a whole? A slow resolution of the litigation, or a long extended litigation before the US Courts could have upended the chances of the Republican flag bearer to even proceed with campaigning and receiving the due support due an uncontroversial party’s flag bearer. The myth that all aspirants born abroad are qualified to run and win the US presidency, may be drawn out in a blood birth in a US Court of law; and lead to other unexpected ramification for enlisted men and women, who give birth to a child while in a foreign land, or in the service of the United States government, overseas.

Second, in the case of citizens of US protectorate, who choose to move and live in continental United States, i.e., within the confines of the fifty-states of the Union, could they or their children born in their former homeland, qualify to run for the US presidency, by the fact that citizens of US protectorates, qualifies equally as citizens of the United States. Neither a child born within the confines of the fifty states or any of the US protectorates, and or their children given birth to in one of the US protectorate or foreign land, may be denied the right to run and occupy the office of the US presidency? US protectorate citizens, who moved to live within the confines of the fifty states of the Union, who are not removed for any illegal activities, and who gave birth in a foreign land as Canada, on a holiday trip to that country, could that offing of theirs, qualify to run and occupy the office of the US presidency? The Republican Party presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, once accused Ted Cruz as not qualified to run for the US Presidency, but latter backed down: could he have been guilty of being an accomplice to a crime; or, condemned as a citizen, who saw a law being broken and because of political expediency or need to be politically correct, chose to look away; or, as a responsible and loyal US citizen, raised the issue for proper accountability? Just like the Manhattan businessman Donald Trump demanded or implicated at the time, it is safe to assume that all the other republican aspirants in 2016 race for the White House oval office, were or are curious to know if Ted Cruz is qualified to run for the US Presidency.

The recent experience of finding themselves contesting against a candidate, who probably may not have been constitutionally qualified to run for the office, challenges the question of party loyalty and put fore-front, the question of part’s unity against a formidable enemy or foe, the Democratic Party. Conservative and non-conservative Republicans, the ‘Reagan Coalition’, consisting of libertarians, traditionalists, anti-communists, neoconservatives and the new religious right, will find themselves being pitched against the moderate liberal Bon Doyle Republicans, consisting of figures like Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush and Richard Nixon doctrinaire, in a contestable issue as who the constitution says is qualified among Republicans to run for the office of the US President. In the Iran Contra arm sales, you saw the erosion of the credibility of the Reagan Coalition group, just as you witness the meddling in the affairs of the Democratic Party break in that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon, eroding the credibility of probably the Bob Doyle Republicans, as well. The ideological spectrum within the Republican Party appears rather long; however, it may be difficult to completely unravel Donald Trump, within the context of the realms of the ideological spectrum, because of the difficulty of defining the aspirations of the face of the new Republican party, the complicated insurgency of Tea Party members and the very difficult to define needs of this new pressure group within the party, who appears to have fallen in love with the party’s presumptive nominee. Donald Trump, has been categorized as a non-conservative Republican on some social issues, while extremely conservative on some economic issues. Maybe the slow process of questioning the qualification of a foreign born citizen like Ted Cruz, appeared as insignificant in the context of the overall party’s desire to win back the White House in 2016, and the issue  of investigating the qualification of a foreign born Republican conservative was not high enough in a scheme of things before the party; however, the qualification of who runs for the office of the US Presidency and who ends up occupying the white house oval office continue to engender interests of constitutional purists and non-constitutional purists, alike.

Using the words of Ted Cruz as he bows out of the 2016 Republican race for party nomination, the challenge we face today remain as great as ever; Americans are deeply frustrated and desperately want to change the path that we’re on; however, what he probably left out, is the fact that the change Americans are seeking is not one of accommodating a foreign-born to come and occupy the White House oval office, or are we? Beyond the contemplation of qualification for the office of the US Presidency, the specter of neoconservative religious bigotry that characterized Ted Cruz’s candidacy for 2016 White House is abhorrent to so many Republicans, not to talk of other Americans. The gulf between the aspirations for America between Democrats and Republicans in 2016, far outstrip any accommodation of the brand of Ted Cruz’s politics. Truly, the qualification of Ted Cruz as a liar by his fellow rival, Donald Trump, though unsavory, appears to be justified, if it ends up that he is constitutionally unqualified to run for the US presidency. In reversals, if he qualifies as interpreted by the courts, not only does he deserve an apology from the presumptive Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump, he also reserves the rights not to be harassed with lewd and miserable language, especially those denigrating him as a foreign born seeking to occupy the White House oval office.

For Cruz, who was once eager to go all the way to the Cleveland convention to contest party nomination, his exit from the race and probably his future, could never be more gloomy as he reflects on the humiliating and massive losses to an outsider to American politics in the Northeast and Mid-West. Probably his ego was hurt by the Indiana State results after giving it all he could muster; probably his credibility and chances of running in the future for the office has been greatly handicapped by the current experience; however, as Manhattan Businessman Trump said, he was a good and relentless competitor. 

Nomination had seemed within reach for Ted Cruz when he steadily rose through the 2015 campaign season and broke into the top tier in the state of Iowa in early 2016. His chances began to unravel however, immediately Donald Trump seized to accommodate further intra-party debates; arguing they had had enough of aspirants’ debate within their party. Suddenly and sadly, Ted Cruz was facing huge hemorrhaging of supporters and the crescendos of his humiliating loss in Indiana due to this new reality, probably showed him the door or informed him, it was time to go home. The strings of massive losses stood as a beacon of incompetence and a disorderly campaign that was losing all that was left of its steam. His contemplation that his candidacy will be driven by perceived discontent with the Republican establishment, at least this time around, is and was a fluke; or, delusional mischaracterization. The rank and file were supporting Donald Trump, a novice to national politics; a true outsider, believed by the rank and file republicans, could shake things up from bottom to the top of the party. Can Ted Cruz’s candidacy have made more of an impact on the direction of the party, the way Donald Trump’s may, if he had won the nomination? It is difficult to say for now; however, it appears that the rank and file Republicans supporting Donald Trump have an amicable respect and conviction in him and there is no name calling or mischaracterization of Donald Trump as a sniveling coward, or amoral pathological liar, coming from foreign-born Ted Cruz, could have unravel his candidacy or prospect; and or, dissuade his loyalists.
Post a Comment