Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
February 11, 2016

Ted Cruz Stars in New Ad for T.W. Shannon in Oklahoma

ted cruz

Cruz is a Republican from Texas. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who has largely stayed out of the primary fray this year, stars in a new ad from Senate Conservatives Fund backing T.W. Shannon in the Oklahoma GOP primary for Senate.

Shannon faces Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., and several lesser known candidates in Tuesday’s primary. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is resigning at the end of this Congress, leaving the seat open.

“In Oklahoma, there are a number of good Senate candidates, but T.W. Shannon is a conservative fighter,” Cruz says in the ad.

“He has the courage to look Washington insiders in the eye, and say, ‘I don’t work for you, I work for the people of Oklahoma,’ ” Cruz goes on.

The 30-second ad begins running Thursday and will stay on the  air through primary day. The ad is backed by a $163,429 buy, according to SCF.

Shannon is one of just two Senate candidates Cruz has endorsed this cycle. The Texas Senator appeared at a rally for him in April.

The race is rated Safe Republican by the Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call.

  • David Farrar

    Here’s the problem when it comes to Sen Cruz’s presidential aspirations for Tea Party supporters like myself: first and foremost, we are American Constitutionalist, defined as those who have studied, know, understand and respect the Rule of Constitutional Law. As such, we must confront Sen. Cruz when he says: “I’ve disclosed all the relevant facts. As you know, I was born in Canada. My mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of my birth. She was a U.S. citizen from birth so, under U.S. law, I’m an American citizen by birth.”

    If Sen Cruz believes he is an Art. II §1 cl. 4 natural born Citizen because he was an American citizen by birth, he must also believe, as does Obama, the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country are also natural born citizens and can run for the President of the United States as well, without ever pledging to support and defend the US Const.

    If Sen Cruz believes he is an Art. II §1 cl. 4 natural born Citizen because he was an American citizen by birth, he must also believe, as does Obama, the power to set the qualifications for the president and vice-president of the United States lies not where the founders and framers had rightfully placed it, i.e., in the hands of we the People, but in the plenary hands of the state, i.e., Congress, i.e., positive law Title 8 USC §1401 (g).

    If Sen Cruz believes he is an Art. II §1 cl. 4 natural born Citizen because he was an American citizen by birth, he must also believe, as does Obama, there is no difference between a natural born British subject and an natural born US Citizen. Now I know, leftest, socialist, communists, and our courts, all believe these things to be true. If Sen. Cruz also believe these things to be true, I cannot support his presidency.

    I hope Sen Cruz, at some point in time, can see the error of his ways, even if perhaps some of his more ardent supporters cannot, and step up to the plate and lead the charge in restoring our most cherished American birthright from the gutter it has been placed by our courts. If he does such a thing, I am sure he will find himself sitting on the bench of the US Supreme Court, perhaps even as its chief justice and entering the history books with his head held up high.

    ex animo

  • The Classical Liberal

    I’m an American citizen as is my wife. If my wife delivers a child outside of the United States that child is an American citizen.

    Are you saying that a diplomat’s wife must return to the US to have her baby else the child is not a US citizen?

    If people go on a vacation and the baby comes out early are you saying the child isn’t American?

    If one of Ted Cruz’s parents was an American then he is. By the same token an illegal immigrant’s child born in the US should not make him a US citizen. (Just as a diplomat’s child born in Russian, China, Japan, wherever doesn’t make the child Russian, Chinese or Japanese.)

  • David Farrar

    US Diplomats, while on assigned duties outside of US territorial boundaries, are, in fact, within US jurisdiction. But, again, let’s be clear here, we are not simply talking about American citizens at birth, but “natural” American citizenship at birth as an aspect of the qualifications of the President of the United States, and why the founders and framers specifically inserted the enigmatic phrase into Art. II §1 cl. 4.

    There are only two ways to become a US citizen, either naturally, or by statute. If you are born of two US citizen parents within the jurisdiction, you are born a “natural” US Citizen, under the cloak of allegiance of your US Citizen parents. If you are born under any other circumstance, where statutory provisions must be used to acquire US citizenship, you are a naturalized American citizen, either at birth or after birth. Those who must rely of statutory provisions to acquire US citizenship are not “natural” born US citizens.

    An Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born (US) citizen can only be born with one allegiance at birth, and that allegiance is to support and abide by the US Const. Being born with dual allegiances would require statutory provisions at, or after, the age of majority to resolve this conflict, unnecessary of an Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born (US) citizen.

    ex animo

  • The Classical Liberal

    Has the phrase “natural-born citizen” been defined to mean that a child born of American parents (military base, on vacation, whatever) is not “natural-born” as it applies to being a President?

    Would a child of soldier in the American west not be eligible to be president if he was born in a territory not yet a state?

    My understanding (and I’m not an attorney) is that the guiding concept is holding allegiance to another country. (Thus the child in the above scenario would be American as he did not give, or could be reasonable be believed to have allegiance to France, England, Spain, whatever).

    A child, born of American parents, in another country who returns shortly after birth and whose parents never held allegiance to that other country – that child would never be considered to have given allegiance to other country. (Just as if my wife gave birth while we were vacationing in Italy or some Caribbean island.)

    In the above scenario would you consider *my* child to be eligible to become POTUS?

  • David Farrar

    You have raised several different issues with your example. As long as both parents are US citizens, the only other issue is jurisdiction. As far as being born on US military bases overseas, if US jurisdiction had been extended by treaty and authorized by Congress before the offspring was born within that military facility, they would be Art. II §1 cl. 4 natural born Citizens. If US jurisdiction had not be extended by treaty and Congress, any offspring born of two US citizens, would be American citizens at birth, but probably would encounter some resistance if they ever decided to stand for the US presidency or vice-presidency of the United States. The reason why is because statutory provisions would have to be relied upon to access US citizenship at birth for you child born outside of US jurisdiction.

    Birth in US territories not yet a state, would all depend of the territorial provisions as adopted by Congress. But I am pretty sure most, if not all, of these former territories would have US jurisdiction extended to them by Congress before becoming a state of the union

    What we are discussing here, in fact, is the difference between de Vattel’s ‘natural born citizenship’, and Art. II §1 cl. 4 natural born (US) Citizenship. De Vattel pointed out that other restrictions could be placed on citizenship if such restrictions did not prevent the offspring following their natural right to inherit their father’s citizenship (partus sequitur patrem).

    Now in Sen Cruz’s case, not only was he born outside of US jurisdiction, but he was also born of dual allegiances. Sen. Cruz has to rely on statutory provisions to become a US citizens at birth, and further, he just was able to renounce his Canadian citizenship, yet another reliance of statutory provisions, albeit, Canadian statutory provisions, none of which would have been necessary if he was, in fact an Art. II §1 cl. 4 natural born (US) Citizen.

    Of course this is not what the present ruling of our courts state. As far as they are concerned, any person born within the jurisdiction of parents domiciled in the US at the time of birth, is an Art. II §1 cl. 4 natural born (US) Citizen, and any person born overseas of one US citizen parent is an Art. II §1 cl. 4 natural born (US) Citizen.

    ex animo

  • The Classical Liberal

    Fair enough. The child born elsewhere but to American parents (such as *my* child in the earlier post) will have questions raised. The details to this question should be answered before an election takes place.

    Now – I see your point about Cruz, especially if he was given Canadian citizenship and had to explicitly renounce it. This is something the courts ought to address BEFORE a nominee is selected / elected to the office of president.

    I still look it as a question of allegiance; that you don’t want a child raised in a foreign country who may have mixed allegiances, or perceived to have mixed allegiances when commander-in-chief of US armed forces.

    I don’t see Ted Cruz having mixed loyalties but it doesn’t matter what I think. The issue ought to be determined by the SC before Cruz runs for office.

  • David Farrar

    You should also be aware that other nations may also have a claim on your child citizenship because of where s/he was born, even if born of two US citizen parents. This happened in an actual case where the man was, in fact, a born American citizen, but he was also an Italian citizen, according to Italian law, having been born in Italy of American parents, and, thus, was subject to their military draft, which, of course, he knew nothing about until he was arrested one day in Italy for failure to register for that country’s military draft.

    But I agree with you, the key is “transfer of allegiance” as far as US citizenship is concerned.

    ex animo

  • The Classical Liberal

    Thank you. It was a great conversation. Love your signature as well.

  • smrstrauss

    Ted Cruz may not be a Natural Born Citizen because he was born in Canada. He is probably a US citizen because his mother was a US citizen, but some say that is insufficient.

    But the overwhelming majority of court cases and legal scholars say that there is not a shred of a doubt that the term Natural Born Citizen includes every child born on US SOIL except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders—-and, yes, that includes the US-born children of illegal aliens (if you do not want the US-born child of an illegal alien, don’t vote for her or him).

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the
    United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”
    (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin
    G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “Under the longstanding English common-law
    principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the
    sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are
    citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States
    are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less
    certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States
    citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President
    (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the
    Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by
    birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born”
    citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion,
    which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in
    meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal

    child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen
    except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham
    (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

    And there have now
    been NINE state court rulings on Obama alone, and one federal court
    ruling on Obama, and one more state court ruling on McCain. All TEN of
    those rulings said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined by the US
    Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and that the Wong Kim Ark case
    said that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law (as Meese
    also said), and that it referred to the place of birth (as Meese, Hatch
    and Graham all say), and that every child born in the USA except for
    the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.

    More reading on the subject:

Sign In

Forgot password?



Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...