Ted Cruz ally: Some Rand Paul supporters raising questions in Iowa about his eligibility

posted at 11:21 am on August 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

Expert shinola-stirring by Paul Bedard on a slow summer news day, but the evidence is basically one guy in Iowa reading Facebook posts from Paul fans that he can’t/won’t even cite. Other plugged-in Iowa righties say they’re not hearing anything about it from the Paulites, rather that it’s the local media that’s most interested in Cruz’s eligibility. (Surprise.) The closest we get to a smoking gun is the legislative director from Paul’s Campaign for Liberty being a tiny bit cute in saying he expects a smart lawyer like Cruz will have no problem “getting around” the natural-born requirement.

And yet, because a Cruz/Paul battle for the soul of grassroots conservatism would be the most gripping storyline of the 2016 primaries, the first inkling of conflict is bound to get attention even when there’s not much to it:

“They’re scared and they now keep bringing up the eligibility issue,” Jamie Johnson told the Washington Examiner. Johnson was coalitions director for Rick Santorum’s campaign during the 2012 Iowa caucuses, but he hopes Cruz wins the Republican nomination in 2016. “They are hitting the eligibility issue hard,” Johnson said. “They’re using third-party sources, though; they don’t want it tracked back to Campaign for Liberty [an organization that grew out of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential bid].”…

Johnson, who serves on the Iowa Republican Party State Central Committee, didn’t provide direct evidence that the whisper campaign is underway, but invoked his interaction with Paul’s supporters in the Iowa GOP. ”How do I know? because I talk with them,” he said. “I look at their Facebook posts and their Twitter [feeds].”

The reply from Campaign for Liberty legislative director Jeff Shipley:

“If you’re going to call yourself a true constitutionalist, well, it’s right there in the Constitution,” Shipley told the Washington Examiner during a phone interview. “Obviously, that’s something Mr. Cruz needs to address, that he’s eligible for the office.”

Shipley doesn’t think that’ll be difficult. “With the legal documents, it’s all language, and he’s a very competent lawyer, so I’m sure he can get around it,” he said.

He also addressed the claim that Campaign for Liberty is casting doubt on Cruz’s eligibility. “There probably are some Senator Paul supporters that feel threatened by Senator Cruz, and they may be saying some things, but I think that’s just kind of petty nonsense — I don’t think it’ll amount to much,” Shipley said, noting that he hadn’t heard any Campaign for Liberty people making the argument.

Paul himself said last week that he doesn’t question Cruz’s eligibility, which would make it … difficult for him to raise this later. In fact, I think the real news from Bedard’s piece is Craig Robinson of the Iowa Republican website saying that political reporters he’s spoken to believe the eligibility issue will be Cruz’s “biggest hurdle” in Iowa. Really? Which rivals are going to make that an issue in the primaries? Hillary had that option against Obama five years ago and passed on it, sensing (correctly) that it would probably blow up on her by annoying undecideds and making her look desperate. If Paul or Christie or anyone else ends up reduced to navel-gazing about Cruz’s eligibility to win Iowa, that would likely mean Cruz has the caucus all but locked up. As for grassroots anti-Cruz Birtherism, the fuel for that in Obama’s case was antipathy to his liberalism; get O disqualified from office, the logic went, and you stop America’s leftward drift (or slow it, since Uncle Joe Biden was waiting in the wings). How much antipathy to the famously conservative Cruz are you likely to find in the famously conservative Iowa GOP electorate?

In other news today, Cruz reaffirmed that he stands with Rand in the dispute between him and Christie over national security. Exit question: Why would a former Santorum staffer want to set Paul and Cruz against each other this early? Hmmmm.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Bmore +

Schadenfreude on August 20, 2013 at 1:02 PM

terryannonline on August 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Delusional. It w/b Child/Man…think about it.

Schadenfreude on August 20, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Plus, Cruz, if it’s him, will never pick traitor Rubio.

T axed
E naugh
A lready

is what the TEA in “Tea party” stands for.

Rubio is a liar and traitor to the tea party, af faker, just to win. He can go to Hades for that alone and will never be trusted, ever again…never mind his contortions on amnesty.

Schadenfreude on August 20, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Yea, they totally fell for his line about being born in Hawaii and not Kenya.

verbaluce on August 20, 2013 at 12:44 PM

That’s such old news.

Schadenfreude on August 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Well it seems everything old is new again.

verbaluce on August 20, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I’ll let you in on a little secret….

I’m a PALIN REPUBLICAN.

ToddPA on August 20, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Man, you’ve been keeping that one under your hat.

verbaluce on August 20, 2013 at 1:08 PM

I’ll let you in on a little secret….

I’m a PALIN REPUBLICAN.

ToddPA on August 20, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Man, you’ve been keeping that one under your hat.

verbaluce on August 20, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Yup, I knew you’d “hit” that one! HA!

ToddPA on August 20, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Regarding Cruz I already read a hit piece article about his College days and it said he was kind of “creepy.”Funny how they could find old College roommates of Cruz but they can’t find anyone who remembers Obama in College…

sandee on August 20, 2013 at 11:43 AM

You want creepy, dig up that picture of the REB during the Columbia years sitting on the sofa with his Pak ‘roommate’.

slickwillie2001 on August 20, 2013 at 1:11 PM

This is just the Iowa GOP trying to discredit the two best candidates so they can have some clown win this nomination again.

besser tot als rot on August 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Yup, I knew you’d “hit” that one! HA!

ToddPA on August 20, 2013 at 1:10 PM

We are all too predictable.

verbaluce on August 20, 2013 at 1:13 PM

You may want to quit practicing law, which you are clearly not qualified to do, and have Cruz ask the proper question to the court. That way it will never be an issue.

Tater Salad on August 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Show me a court that would throw out a duly-elected President based on a paranoid birther’s rantings about what constitutes a “natural born citizen.”

Citizen at birth = natural born citizen…to anyone with a lick of common sense, anyway.

Okay, so if I move to (pick your country), impregnate a local woman, my kid would then be eligible to be president assuming he lived in the US for the requisite number of years? Even if he’d never set foot in the US until he was 25?

I’m not trying to be a wiseguy here, but I am trying to understand how “naturally born citizen” can mean anyone born to a single American parent anywhere in the world.

Timin203 on August 20, 2013 at 12:07 PM

The answer to your question is no.
Your child would have to be 35 years old and a resident of the US for at least 14 years…according to the Constitution.

DRayRaven on August 20, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Yup, I knew you’d “hit” that one! HA!

ToddPA on August 20, 2013 at 1:10 PM

We are all too predictable.

verbaluce on August 20, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Some more so than others…speaking of Dave Rywall…

this IS a Canadian thread indirectly…

ToddPA on August 20, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Some more so than others…speaking of Dave Rywall…

this IS a Canadian thread indirectly…
ToddPA on August 20, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if he’d say “I own Cruz”…irony, irony.

Schadenfreude on August 20, 2013 at 1:21 PM

I’m sure Sarah “I’m on Team Rand” Palin put him up to it. She’s always doing things like this.

steebo77 on August 20, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Ok, you did it! :-)

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Thanks Allahpundit for engaging in the thread comments.

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Obama, Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are all ineligible for the office because they were not “born in the country, to parents who are its citizens”. At birth, each of them had ties, either by birth location or by citizenship/subjecthood of a parent, to a foreign country. That disqualifies them all, because none of them qualify under the grandfater clause of citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (1789).

Although this may seem attractive, the problem is that it is just your own personal version of the law that you wish were true. This explanation has no basis in any currently operative Federal Court decisions, and no support in any area of current US law. (We’re talking Law as applied in everyday, real world Courtrooms, not internet bloviation) I can spin theories about what I wish were true all day long, lawyers are good at that, but at the end of the day you’ve got to remember that wishing doesn’t make it so. And a legal theory don’t mean squat if you haven’t got a Judge with the proper level of clout willing to put his imprimatur on the thing. There ain’t none.

This is on par with the people who think you don’t have to pay income taxes because it’s unconstitutional or something. All of those people end up in jail sooner or later, and that’s just the Way It Works. Don’t be those guys.

A lot of people are mad because they really just don’t like the fact that the US has about the most relaxed and open standards regarding citizenship of any country in the world. Well that may be good and that may bad, but deal with it. That’s the law, as it stands today.

Tom Servo on August 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Hah

Schadenfreude on August 20, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Lolz! Now that right there is funny Allah! Lolz! the gilled one read the posts. Lolz!

Bmore on August 20, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Can’t stop LOL

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 1:48 PM

To all those who insist on their own particular definition of “natural born citizen”: there are two ways to become a citizen of the United States, either be born to a citizen of the United States (where is IRRELEVANT) or be naturalized.

Natural born, or naturalized. That is ALL it means.

In the immortal words of the late Mayor Ed Koch: “I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.”

Adjoran on August 20, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Um, Cruz was a citizen when he was born, so he is by definition a “natural born citizen.”

Birthers should declare up front whether they’re racist or just all-around whack-job conspiracy theorists who take sites like infowars seriously.

DRayRaven on August 20, 2013 at 12:00 PM

The difference between citizen at birth and natural born citizen has been explained on this site numerous times. You should have gotten it by now. I can only suggest more reading or the ingestion of something which will boost your IQ up to the same level as Biden.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 1:52 PM

I wasn’t a big Ted Cruz fan. But now Paulites are attacking him….I am now.

Rubio/Cruz 2016!

terryannonline on August 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM

You’re still not.

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Obama, Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are all ineligible for the office because they were not “born in the country, to parents who are its citizens”. At birth, each of them had ties, either by birth location or by citizenship/subjecthood of a parent, to a foreign country. That disqualifies them all, because none of them qualify under the grandfater clause of citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (1789).

Although this may seem attractive, the problem is that it is just your own personal version of the law that you wish were true. This explanation has no basis in any currently operative Federal Court decisions, and no support in any area of current US law. (We’re talking Law as applied in everyday, real world Courtrooms, not internet bloviation) I can spin theories about what I wish were true all day long, lawyers are good at that, but at the end of the day you’ve got to remember that wishing doesn’t make it so. And a legal theory don’t mean squat if you haven’t got a Judge with the proper level of clout willing to put his imprimatur on the thing. There ain’t none.

This is on par with the people who think you don’t have to pay income taxes because it’s unconstitutional or something. All of those people end up in jail sooner or later, and that’s just the Way It Works. Don’t be those guys.

A lot of people are mad because they really just don’t like the fact that the US has about the most relaxed and open standards regarding citizenship of any country in the world. Well that may be good and that may bad, but deal with it. That’s the law, as it stands today.

Tom Servo on August 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

In order to properly interpret the Constitution you need to look at the meaning of the terms which were used – as understood by the framers. Subsequent Acts of Congress are on no assistance in telling us what the framers meant.

In the 1875 case of Minor v Happersett Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the Court, said that there was no doubt that a natural born citizen was someone born in the country of 2 citizen parents.

That was consistent with how the term was understood when the Constitution was passed. There are no Federal Court decisions which assist us with this question.

The purpose of the requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, as that term was understood, was to prevent the election of someone with divided allegiances. The same consideration does not apply to whether someone should be entitled to become a mere citizen.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 2:15 PM

The difference between citizen at birth and natural born citizen has been explained on this site numerous times. You should have gotten it by now.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Doesn’t matter. At this point, any distinction is a dead letter.

besser tot als rot on August 20, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Rand and Cruz shouldn’t be the nominees in 2016.

Midwestprincesse on August 20, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Adjoran on August 20, 2013 at 1:49 PM

You would never say that all citizens are born citizens.

The word “born” has meaning, and “born citizens” are a subset of “citizens”.

That is a reasonable, rational, logical argument.

And it is just as reasonable,just as rational, and just as logical to say that the word “natural” has meaning, and “natural born citizens” are a subset of “born citizens”.

There are many citizens. Some are born citizens and others are naturalized.

There are many born citizens. Some of them are natural born citizens (born in the country, to parents who are its citizens, and whom the Supreme Court said DO NOT NEED the 17th Amendment) and others are born citizens by statute (needing the 17th Amendment or other law to deem them citizens at birth).

ITguy on August 20, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Allahpundit on August 20, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Appreciate the measured response. Here is my point, and that of a lot of other Conservatives who are mystified that this absurd story is staying alive and being pushed on conservative sites: by plastering this story all over HA, it’s going to go from a liberal media/Conservative microstory into somethinig much bigger. You and Ed, by posting this business, are giving it legs and legitimizing it, even when you say the source it’s based on is laughable. If the source is dubious at best regardinga a Paul supporter in Iowa, then why bring it up? This isn’t shoot the messenger, this is an ethical consideration. Everyone who reads this site know that Paul and Cruz will eventually have to go negative on each other if both want to be POTUS – there will be a time and a place for it, but what’s being repeated here is pretty much “I heard a guy that read something on Facebook et al.”

Remember the line from The Manchurian Candidate, when the Senator asks Angela Lansbury why they can’t stick to one number when discussing communists in the government? “Because instead of asking if there are communists in the government, they’re now asking how many communists are in the government.” Keep pushing this story because of the hypocrisy and giggles, but do note the rapidly-changing tenor and intensity in your own comments sections. Soon, the question won’t be whether or not Ted Cruz is going to run for POTUS, the question will be whether Ted Cruz is eligible, and if that story goes mainstream with the narrative being that this was being heatedly discussed on conservative sites as early as the summer of ’13, then Ted Cruz will never be POTUS or even the GOP nominee.

As noted, appreciate the fact that you’re addressing many of the concerns being brought up in the comments.

King B on August 20, 2013 at 2:37 PM

I find it interesting that the U.S. Constitution has not been followed for many years and especially since 2008. The SCOTUS which is supposed to uphold it, themselves violate it. The latest from the SC is the Roberts Unconstitutional Ruling on Obamacare.

NOW, when the first Conservative since Reagan may run for President, NOW everyone wants to site the Founders intent. NOW we have to follow the Constitution.

This Administration, Hillary, Establishment Republicans, possible 2016 Candidates, Rove/Bushies/ MSM, Silicon Valley and etc. & etc.
all have skin in the game to take out Senator Ted Cruz.

Traitors all.

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM

http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/05/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-i-from-alexander-hamilton-to-lynch-v-clarke/

The founders really did want to give the Presidency to Anchor babies.

Unless someone wants to tear that down. I am pretty much happy to say screw the nation, they can run Arnold for all I care now.

astonerii on August 20, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Or Putin for all that it matters.

astonerii on August 20, 2013 at 2:46 PM

astonerii on August 20, 2013 at 2:45 PM

I didn’t read the entire article at Redstate yet, but this was stated: (indeed, Obama is the only one who had a parent who was an American citizen at the time of his birth, his mother).

That is not true. What is wrong with the write of this article?

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 2:57 PM

s/b “writer”

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Then this statement in the Redstate article:

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

I say it is ALWAYS FIRST from parentage; unless the baby was hatched somewhere like a bird, apart from the Mother!!

Redstate has jumped the shark on this and I don’t think it’s necessary to read any more of their opinion.

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 3:03 PM

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Read it. The founders themselves and their trusted assistants all say birth place is the grounds on which it is bound.

Unless you can find history on the side that I agree with you on, I’m out of the fight. If the founders thought that anchor babies were good enough for president, then this nation is not worth defending. I doubt I would have ever joined the Marines knowing this is what the founding fathers intended. I sure as hell would not follow any orders of an anchor baby, but they apparently deigned it appropriate to make that a possibility. My respect for the founding fathers is massively diminished.

astonerii on August 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM

“You’re kind of looking to create a rivalry that’s not there right now.”

What part of this tagline are people not getting?

Bmore on August 20, 2013 at 3:16 PM

astonerii on August 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM

I’ll read the rest of it. I agree with your points IF what they say is a full understanding of the intent. Also, these anchor babies being born to an illegal alien certainly would not be in any of their intent at all. This chain migration was done by the Congress & Administration, not the Founders.

I don’t see how one can separate the Place of Birth from the Parent
anyway. The U.S. Citizen Parent (Mother) must be present at the Place of birth, DUH.

I’m not an Attorney or skilled in interpreting the Constitution, but saying as many do that Cruz was born in Canada, while dismissing the fact that his Mother was/is a U.S. Citizen at the time somehow disqualifies him makes no sense to me.

Also, with the background that Cruz has, it’s doubtful that he wouldn’t already have the answers to all of the speculating. He’ll answer that when the time is right if he wants to run.

Will read some more, but I’ve read RWM & IT’s comments so will refer to that also.

Have work to do now, but will check back in.

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 3:34 PM

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 11:50 AM

There’s no evidence Rand Paul is responsible for any of this. Read the post.

Allahpundit on August 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM

a wonderful woman they like to call “crazy.”

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 12:18 PM

blue ball birther …foams at the mouth…then reads!

KOOLAID2 on August 20, 2013 at 7:27 PM

…blue ball birther …foams at the mouth…then reads!

KOOLAID2 on August 20, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Greengill works too:-)

bluefox on August 20, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2