Houston – Texas Lawyer Files Federal ‘birther’ Suit Against Ted Cruz


    Republican U.S. presidential candidates businessman Donald Trump (L) and Senator Ted Cruz speak simultaneously during the Fox Business Network Republican presidential candidates debate in North Charleston, South Carolina, January 14, 2016. REUTERS/Randall Hill  Houston – A veteran attorney in Ted Cruz’s hometown of Houston has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Canadian-born senator’s eligibility to be president.

    In a 28-page complaint Thursday, Newton Schwartz asked the Supreme Court to decide if Cruz’s birth to an American mother and Cuban father while they lived in Calgary violates the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement.

    Cruz argues that because his mother is American, he became a U.S. citizen at birth. But the Supreme Court hasn’t previously considered the eligibility question.

    Presidential rival Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned Cruz’s presidential eligibility.

    The pair squared off during Thursday night’s Republican debate. When Trump again raised the issue, Cruz shot back that though the Constitution hasn’t changed recently, his polling numbers have — driving Trump’s “birther” questions.

    Follow VosIzNeias For Breaking News Updates

    Kosher.com is here to help you manage your home without the stress. Go to Kosher.com for recipes, menu planners, kids' activities, and more.


    1. He can not be a president as requierements are to be born in USA or american territory such as a military base or installation
      he was not born on an american military base in canada

    2. Mr Haimov, Do you have another version of the Constitution? The Constitution clearly states “Natural Born Citizens” as a requirement to be US President. Which means to become a citizen “at birth” any American that has a baby overseas where child becomes US Citizen at birth is eligible to run for US President.

      • Not really. Where the language of the Constitution is ambiguous (as it obviously is or we wouldn’t be having this discussion) the courts will look to legislative intent and extrinsic evidence to assist in interpretation. In the SCOTUS, there are two major schools of thought as to how to interpret the Constitution. The Strict Constructionists (Scalia, Alito, etc), who are backed by Ted Cruz and Republicans, believe we can only use the original intent it at the time it was written. Using this doctrine, it is likely that “natural born” means born in the U.S. The Loose Constructionists (Ginsburg, Breyer etc) are centrists/progressives, nominated by Democrats, who believe in a living, evolving Constitution, and who would likely consider Cruz to be naturally born if he has an American parent. How ironic. We liberals are greatly enjoying this. We remember Republicans arguing that Obama is not naturally born when he had an American mother and was born in Hawai’i. Payback time for your own misdeeds. This is what happens when you let stupid run your party.

    3. #1 you are wrong it just says has to be a natural born citizen it says nothing of having to be born on US soil. you may want to interpret it that way but no court has ever ruled on it and until they do hes as natural born citizen as anyone else


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here