Racist? Florida Democrat Says He’ll Sue Ted Cruz If He Wins The...

Racist? Florida Democrat Says He’ll Sue Ted Cruz If He Wins The Presidency Over “Birther” Concerns

A controversial Florida Democrat says he will sue Texas Senator Ted Cruz if Cruz were to win the race for the White House in 2016.

Will the media call him racist as they did with those who questioned Barack Obama? Don’t hold your breath…

According to The Hill:

“Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) says he will file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) presidential bid if Cruz wins his party’s nomination

>Grayson said Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, is “unqualified” to be president “because he’s ineligible.”

“I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination, and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he’s ineligible,” Grayson said on Fox News Radio’s “The Alan Colmes Show” on Wednesday.

“Call me crazy but I think the President of America should be an American,” he added. Cruz is an American citizen.

The Florida lawmaker compared questions of Cruz’s eligibility to “birthers” who claimed President Obama was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible for the office.”

[wpdevfb]

120 COMMENTS

  1. Yet I bet this person has no issue whatsoever with the current occupant. I guess things are only one way with liberal democrats, right?

    Yet another example of the glaring hypocrisy of the left.

    Disgusting. I think that we all should email or write to this person and let him know how hypocritical we think he is.

    • his being wrong and/or silent about the kinyun has no bearing on his being correct about Cruz/ He IS a rat of the worst order for looking the other way as the kinyun violates the law, and now “blowing the whistle” on Cruz…. but none of that changes his being correct about Cruz… nor his being wrong about Obama.

  2. Grayson is the most disgusting POS ever witnessed. If he is really concerned about the citizenship of the Whitehouse occupant and is fair minded he would be facing Obama in court. Being the a-hole he is certified to be, Grayson only has interest in creating problems for Conservatives. Grayson is kept in office by the miserable miscreants that are stupid enough to keep voting for him.

  3. If Barack Hussein Obama, having a Muslime Father and an American mother, just how did he get to be the so called President, can you answer that one mr.DisGrayson?
    You mr Grayson your are a total IdIoT. If Obama the Blowhard can be put into office
    so can Ted Cruz.

    • moslem father makes no difference. But a British Subject, which Senior most definitely was, DOES make a huge difference. That fact alone disqualifies him. Just as Cruz’s Father bieng a Cuban citizen at the time of Ted’s birth renders Ted ineligible.

      • My question WAS HOW, did Obama the Blowhard get to be a so called president. British Subject, Moslem, or from Mars, that wasnt my question
        HOW did Obama the Blowhard get to be in that office?
        If what you say is true, Obama the Blowhard is an Illegal so called president.”PEROID” Has been for (7) seven years now, everything he has signed would be NULL and VOID(Illegal Subject)

        • There are about 52 million parasitic citizens ready to vote for anyone that will give them the taxpayers’ money. Those 52 million got Obongo elected twice. They will get Hillary elected in 2016, too — unless Ted Cruz can galvanize all the conservatives that sat out the last two elections rather than vote for Warmonger McPain and Willard the Mormon. It’s going to be tough, but Ted Cruz is likely the closest thing to Ronald Reagan in this group. If he can’t do it, no one else will. Trump’s negatives are too high; he could maybe get 40 million votes (at most), but not a majority.

      • What is the difference, Muslim or British, neither are American Citizens.
        Where do you get that HUGE difference, when neither arn’t American citizens?

      • Nonsense. I despise the Muslim Marxist; don’t get me wrong. But he *was* born to an American mom, just like John McCain, who everyone agrees was born in a foreign country. That makes both men a ‘natural born citizen’, according to the relevant court cases.

        Cruz was born to an American mom, living in Canada at the time; but most of his life, Cruz has lived in the USA (Texas). He is a ‘natural born citizen’.

        Having taught at the University of Texas School of Law (he taught courses in Supreme Court litigation, no less) I doubt this Democrat ass wants to go there with Ted Cruz. He’d clean the donkey’s clock.

  4. Alan Grayson has proved his irrationality many times before. The difference is that the media covered up legitimate concerns over Obama. They will trumpet concerns over Cruz. It’s just part of the Pravda-like nature of today’s American press. MSM is the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. Look how they are “covering” Hillary’s absent-without-leave Benghazi scandal and her admitted use of a private server, which has been shown to include classified State Dept business.

    • There’s little doubt that the MSM holds a great deal of the blame for this President having been catapulted into the White House, and they will no doubt be as devious and unscrupulous in their coverage of the next Presidential election.

      • The MSM is nothing more than Government controlled media. Just like they have in Cuba and all Communist countries.

  5. Just another one of Obama’s Regime of fascists fools, they like their current fascist Obama, they don’t want a real President, it would hurt their income.

  6. All you have to do is look at this moron. More akin to an Neanderthal than Homo Sapiens. His parents were probably related before marriage, say first cousins at least. Liberalism to his extent is a mental illness.

  7. This moron, Alan Grayson doesn’t realize that we still have no idea where Obama came from, no records of the colleges he attended, a forged birth certificate, yet he says Cruz is not qualified? This only proves what a liberal moron he is!

      • Florida DEMOCRAT SHOULD sue his mother for giving birth to a zombie FUCKTARD rather and being a disfunctional libtard FART!!!!!!!

    • The Democrats didn’t care where Obama was born. He could speak plain English and he was a Democrat. If this President were White he would have never been able to run and for sure would have been impeached years ago for some of the crap he has said and pulled.

      • Obama hasn’t been impeached because everyone is afraid of the racial war it would cause, I say let the chips fall where ever they may lay, I’m ready! Obama should have been impeached from the first two months of his first term but know he should be indicted on the charges of Treason!

          • Read Article 3 Section 3, where treason is named and defined. NOTHING about qualifying who can be tried… only describes what treason IS. Making war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies (that is enemies of the United States). Not one word abut limiting the charage to “citizens”.

            WHY are so many people IGNORANT of what the Constitutoin says? THIS is why we are in this mess… too few KNOW what it says You can get a copy online for free, it is not copyrighted, it is public domain. Get one, and READ IT, multiple times. KNOW what it says. It would sure save the rest of us a lot of grief.

          • My God man/woman! I was just having fun by pointing out that Obama is not a US citizen and that being a foreigner, he should be shot as a spy or a saboteur. I’ve read the Constitution and BoR along with the Federalist Papers several times. You assume things you know nothing about. You might also read “The 5000 Year Leap” if you haven’t already done so.
            You are the only one in grief here because you take everything literally.
            Grow up !!!.

        • They should have impeached him anyway. He has already started a racial war and a war on the police, those we call on when we are in need.
          Obama nor any of the Democrats have done one thing about cleaning up the plantation cities where blacks kill blacks on a daily basis. It seems they want the criminal scum to commit crime and for the police to just pretend they never saw it. Just let them run and commit more crimes.

    • It also shows what a hypocrite he is. A liberal moron, a hypocrite and UGLY as well. Take a look at that face and you can understand why he is so angry and bitter.

    • Cruz is an American citizen by virtue of a law passed in Congress and approved by the President. Children born in foreign countries of only one citizen parent who resided in the United States at least 10 years, 5 of which were after the age of 14, automatically become US citizens at birth. Assuming Obama was born outside the US, Obama’s mother who was a citizen did not qualify to pass on her citizenship to Obama because she was under 19 years of age when Obama was born. That is, she could not possibly have resided in the United States 5 years after age 14 when she gave birth while under 19 years of age.

  8. There are lots of Presidents born in geographic locations, that were not in the United States, at the time the constitution was established.

  9. OBOZO WAS BORN IN KENYA AND HE IS A MUSLIM AND HE HAS BROKEN THE LAW SO MANY TIMES I CANNOT COUNT ANYMORE. YET RICHARD NIXON WAS IMPEACHED FOR LESS AND CLINTON OVER SEX. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE IDIOT LIBERALS WHEN THE TROUBLE IS WITH A DEMOCRAT? OBAMA SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUSTED 10 TIMES OVER. LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL ILLNESS.

    • I like what you said, but Nixon was never impeached only Clinton and Johnson. Nixon resigned his office, history shows that he would not have been impeached.

    • not only probably born in Kenya, but born of a British Subject father, which makes the place of his birth of no consequence. His pappy was NOT an AmericanCitizen, but a British SUbject, when Junior was born… thus he’d be ineligible had he been born on the White House lawn.

  10. Just LOOK at Grayson. He looks like the president of NAMBLA! Can’t you just see him saying “Hey, little boy…want some candy? Get in my truck.”. Not a real stretch (no pun intended) there, is it?

  11. On the serious side, is there a possibility that Cruz may not be eligible? I know this has been kicked around but I have yet to see a reassuring post on the subject.

    • We know we he was born in Canada and we know his father was kicked out of the US and wasn’t/isn’t a US citizen. If you read the Constitution, there’s a very good possibility that Cruz would be found not eligible by the Supreme Court. He may be an American citizen, but not natural born here. Not like McCain who wasn’t born in the US but was born at a US military base in a foreign country, which is a much more legitimate excuse for not being natural born. A US base, like a US embassy, is considered US soil. Obama was born in Hawaii, which although not really traditional American, (just look at the people), is technically a US state and most of it was a US military base before it became a state.
      All three are legally US citizens, but from a purely technical standpoint, only Obama is natural born on US soil to the fullest extent. In McCain’s case you can make a pretty good argument that a US military base is an extension of US soil. Cruz however although legally a citizen, is in no way natural born.
      We’ve had a few presidents not natural born US citizens, but they were exceptions because the were technically no natural born US citizens until after July 4th 1776. And because they have to be at least 35 years old, that means no one would have been eligible until July 5th 1811. That wasn’t going to work. So they made an exception grandfathering in people who became citizens on July 4th 1776 and had been residents of what became US soil, for 14 years. All those people who would be eligible for the natural born exception are long since dead, so there are no more exceptions today.
      So, like it or not, Obama is indeed technically eligible. McCain probably is eligible if you interpret a US military base as US soil. There is some precedent for that. But no way is Cruz a natural born citizen. Not in the slightest sense. Some have tried to misrepresent what natural born means, but if you read this in the Constitution, it’s pretty clear that the only exceptions they made were to account for the fact that no US natural born citizens existed until after we officially became a country and then none of those would be eligible for another 35 years. Today, there are no exceptions because the only qualified exceptions are all dead. Cruz is not Constitutionally eligible, and any “rules” or “practices” made by Congress can not override the Constitution.

        • Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about what nationality your parents were in order to be a natural born US citizen. Congress passed some laws about granting citizenship, but that doesn’t supersede the Constitution or define natural born. But even so, both parents don’t need to be citizens for you to be a citizen. In fact, if you are natural born here, neither of your parents need to be citizens. The fact is, a child born here to both illegal alien parents is eligible to be President upon reaching 35 years old.
          Get a clue about the Constitution and laws. This just makes you look stupid when you debate liberals and gives all of us a bad name.

          • My God, where did you come up with this tripe?!?!

            Read this and also Vattel’s “Law of Nations” Which the Founders

            based this on. you know, guys like Washington, Jay, Franklin and so on.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            Do you have a clue as to why they have the requirement for the president to be a Natural Born Citizen? Again it is because the Founders were concerned about the possibility of the Commander in Chief having mixed allegiances. Just like the problem we have with Obama as his father was never a US citizen. You are completely missing the point, I’m araid.

          • Look you can’t have it both ways. If you have a problem with Obama, you should have a much bigger problem with Cruz. Obama was born in the US, and as I pointed out, even if neither of his parents were citizens, he is still eligible.
            You can’t go out and use a superpac website dedicated to declaring Obama ineligible for the Presidency as an argument. Again, this just makes you look stupid.
            The bottom line is that the only people who can interpret the Constitution officially are the Supreme Court. There are arguments on both sides of the issue which can be equally supported. As I stated before, the founders were hardly of one mind. Arguably, the founders left some things in the Constitution a little vague. The reason being that both sides of an issue could interpret it in their favor. That’s the only way they got everybody to agree. But the beauty of it is, that they made what amounts to a living document because the Supreme Court has the final say on what it all means.
            As to why the requirements as written. It’s much more simple than what you describe. The fact is that a lot of the new Americans were not entirely on the same page and were supportive of the British Empire. It was no easy task launching the revolutionary war. The fact is that a lot of people were tricked into it. The only foreign allegiance they were worried about was to the British Empire. They wanted only people born in the colonies, but they also had to include their own members who indeed were born in Britain. This made things a bit tricky in the beginning, but would become self correcting in the future by eliminating foreign born individuals. There is no logical reason why the citizenship of your parents would hold a higher degree of allegiance than the country you were born and raised in. In fact the opposite has proven to be far more true. The 14 year resident requirement served as a bit of a stopgap.
            The Supreme Court has never weighed in on the issue. But the Court today would most likely decide in favor of one’s place of birth for a lot of reasons that apply today more than they did then when you had logical exceptions. The very idea of parentage gets pretty complicated. Is your father really who your mother says? Would an adoptive parent count? Would we need to test the DNA of every candidate?
            I’ll just add that we have these superpacs funded by many millions of dollars from people with agendas and one like you cite is so sure they can make a case, why haven’t they been able to? The vast majority of the numerous cases have focused on the “birther issue” all have lost or been rejected. A few have used the natural born citizen definition you describe, acknowledging he was a citizen but citing the parentage issue. These have been rejected out of hand by lower courts and even the Supreme Court itself. Court experts cited that it was ridiculous because of the long standing legal interpretation of a person born in the US as being natural born citizens regardless of parentage.
            Use a superpac website as a source for an argument regardless of which side, and you again, just look stupid. Superpacs, all of them, are propaganda machines. Most everybody knows that. They are not “grass roots” and they are all biased and all are funded by big money to manipulate you. You need to do your own research and not accept cherry picked packages of information.
            You can’t be given any credibility making claims without substance or with substance easily countered. This is why all these cases that have been filed have gone nowhere. What is interesting is that the Cruz issue is entirely different than any brought up before. George Romney’s situation was similar back in 1968. He was born in Mexico to US citizen parents. It was questioned and debated, but no legal case were ever filed. Grayson probably has a better chance of getting his case heard should he file it.

          • Both ways? What makes you think that I am saying that Cruz qualifies? He doesn’t, nor does Jindal or Rubio. I’m a strict Constitutional Conservative and I know the rules and understand why the Founders set it up this way.
            You are still wrong about what an NBC is though. Read what I sent you with the link or do your own research. But is best to go to the original source than some of these stupid later years amendments. It all boils down to protecting the country from a president with mixed allegiances.

          • Sorry, but “those stupid later year amendments” still count. I’ve researched this since high school civics when the George Romney controversy was in play. The two Constitutional purists on the Court Scalia and Thomas have both given indications on where they would come down on NBC. Scalia has made multiple statements publicly and in court that clearly indicate he comes down on the side of Jus Soli. Although Thomas made some public statements about this in 2010 supporting your position, in 2012 he personally rejected hearing the case claiming Obama wasn’t natural born because both his parents weren’t US citizens, letting the lower court ruling stand. Now you can interpret that a couple ways, either he’s changed his views, which is possible because he’s pretty much Scalia’s lap dog, or he’s still there, but knew the court would come down in favor of Jus Soli. He did not comment on why he rejected the case. Which isn’t unprecedented, but a bit unusual.
            We can debate what they actually meant when they wrote the Constitution until the end of time, but we will never really know. There are at least as many supporting documents for the place of birth being the determining factor without other qualifiers. But what counts is where the Court would come down today. That should be pretty clear as their refusal to even hear the case, is a very strong indication that they reject your notion. If you are aware of where all the current justices stand today, you know it too, so the “what they really meant” argument is really pointless.
            The truth be known, I suspect the founders meant it both ways. They left room for interpretation to get everybody to sign on and ratify the document, and they always intended the Supreme Court to have the final word. One way to look at it is they kicked the can down the road, no differently than happens today all the time.
            That said, Cruz will be a non-issue because he has zero chance of getting the nomination and even if he somehow did, most likely, the Court would not hear the case. But who knows. I think their position today would most likely be consistent with who we have come to decide are US citizens. You can make a reasonable case that “natural born” was only a special qualifier in the beginning. Like it or not, the meaning of the Constitution evolves over time. We can’t really know exactly what they meant when a part of it is somewhat vague. But what we do know is that the founders indeed intended it to evolve and not just through “those stupid later amendments” but also through decisions of the current time.

          • They need to be changed back to the Founders’ original intentions. This can be done through an Article V Convention of States. The Founders were very specific about their reasoning as to why they wants such a restriction on the Commander in Chief………….The perfect example is Obama who’s father was never a US citizen. Obama even said way back in the beginning that he would always side with Islam. Talk about mixed allegiances…..My God !

          • Classic example of your problem. Taking things out of context or creating a false context to fit your needs. But it has nothing to do with the question at hand other than you would do whatever it takes to delegitimize Obama. You realize that this just trashes every one of your arguments? No credibility because you have an agenda.
            Read the following and quit reading garbage on email and Tea Party websites.

            http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-dreams-of-my-father/

          • You are out of your frigging mind and a GD racist! This is pure propaganda cutting and pasting out of context quotes.
            But here’s the kicker that should make your bigoted blood boil. It matters not if Obama were a Muslim. Nowhere in the Constitution does it exclude Muslims from anything. It clearly states no religious preference. (I know, next you’ll tell me that they really meant just the different flavors of Christians and in no way included the “false religions” like Islam.) Got some quotes on that too?
            You start out trying to make a decent argument but when I prove to you that it is no better than any other, you resort to mudslinging at the President of the United States. Our President, yours and mine. I’ll bet you couldn’t have cared less about the Constitution until Obama came on the scene. You can deny it, but you know that’s true and I know it’s true.
            As for Fact Check being a Progressive/Left Wing group, you are simply nuts. But it doesn’t really matter, they gave the fuller context of the quote you used to attempt to make a point. If you have half a brain left, you don’t need to read their analysis, just read the full context.
            Guys like you give the rest of conservatives a bad name. Let me guess, you’re a Trump supporter? The guy who will single handedly destroy the Republican party. My God, man, get a clue. I’m done with this discussion, because you don’t want to debate history or the Constitution, you just want to find an excuse to delegitimize the President. Your President. The chief executive of your country, the Commander in Chief of our loyal armed forces. If you want to criticize his policies, fine but don’t try to make him a lesser human being or person unqualified to be the President. You are no better than half the TP loonies on this site. You have sickness in your soul. May God forgive you.

          • The only thing you can come up with is the only thing any liberal can come up with as they never have any sound facts, is to use the race card. For your information, Islam nor Muslims are NOT a race so how am I a racist? The video I sent you is Obama himself saying he is Muslim. But you can’t or won’t admit it after seeing it with your own eyes. You are a waste of time so there is nothing to be gained by trying to open your eyes as it will never happen. Don;t bother me anymore.

          • wrong again… BOTH parents MUST be US citizens at the time of the birh HERE, thus Obama is NOT eligible, his pappy was a Britich Subject. READ the legal sources referenced at the time the Constitution was written. It is VERY clear. Further, ther eis a Supreme COurt case, Minor vs Happersett, or spelling very close to that, about 1885, where the term is defined.
            Agreed, the Founders were not always of one mind… but bear in YOUR mind that they had just lived through a time when mixed loyalties had caused considerable trouble.. consider General Thomas W Gage, CinC of British Forces in the colonies.. married to a Colonial wife who, as seems almost certain, “spilled the beans” on Gage’s powder raid on Lexington and Concord, allowing the Colonials to be alerted and stand and repel Gage’s forces. Benedict Arnold is another example. The Froamers wanted to be as careful as possible in assuring that whoever the CinC and Chief Executive might be, he would be very UNlikely to have mixed loyalties. Case in point for why this is importand: have a casual look into the antics and misdeeds of the present CinC and Chief Executive. THIS is exactly WHY they imposed that restriction.

          • More of your nonsense: “The only people that can interpret the Constitution officially are [sic] the Supreme Court”.

            Read the law itself; in the preamble, it stipulates, “We The People….do ordain…”. So, the highest authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution is the creators thereof, NOT one of the *creatures* of the law. So if the People desire a thing that the SCOTUS disallows, the People shall have their wish.

            A good book on this subject is, ‘The People Themselves’, by former Stanford Law School dean Larry Kramer.

            Again: Ted Cruz is no fool. He knows a great deal more than you do, about this subject. Not only the cases, but the principles driving both sides of any aspect of an argument that could be brought on this matter, even if the cases appear to be completely inapplicable to the fact issues. Senator Cruz did not decide to run for the presidency without having completed exhaustive due diligence on this. That is just not who the fellow is.

            Okay, I’m done. Bloviate away again, about the ‘natural born’ clause…

          • The People can override the Constitution, but that is by Amending it. Congress can pass laws that “override” or circumvent the Constitution, but they are only valid up to the point where the Court addresses their Constitutionality. But the SC only is to weigh in when someone’s rights have been agreived by the law. Congress gets away with overriding the
            the Constitution, but they don’t get to decide what it means. The SC has the final say. And that can only be overriden by the People, through the Amendment process.

          • wrong. Congress doesn’t need to pass any laws, the term”Natural Born Citizen” is a legal term, well understood at the time of our Founding. It meant then, and still does, that the person is born IN the US, of TWO parents who are US CItizens at the time of birth. Note well, that qualification is not established for any other office than president or VP. ALL the Framers were well aware of the legal meaning of the term.
            A person born here, and SUBJECT TO THE LAWS of the nation and the state where the birth takes place is a citizen…. but unless both parents are citizens at that time, the child is a citizen, no question. But not natural born, thus not eligible to be president.

      • wrong… must be born in the US, and of TWO parents who are CITIZENS at time of birth. Obama’s pappy was a British Subject, this he can not be a Natural Born Citizen. Nor can Cruz… born in Canada of a Cuban Father and American Mother. In Obama’s case, place of birth is moot, as he does NOT have a father who was a citizen of the US at the time of Junior’s birth, wherever it was.
        McCain was born on a US military base, which is, at law, US Soil as you correctly pointed out. Both of his parents are US Citizens.

        Jiudal, Landrieu, Rubio are all NOT Natural Born Citizens. And I seem to remember one other but can’t think of who that might be.

      • What are you going to do with both parents Father and Mother American Citizens. So neither was Obama, a Muslem British Subject NOT qulified.
        Obama went to school in Indonesia that would require him to be an Indonesian
        when regestered for school.
        They tell me he has spent millions to keep his records sealed, I haven’t seen any of them. Some say he went to collage as a foreign exchange student, Free Collage, havent seen any papers.

        And everyone should know by now he (Obama) would climb a tall tall tree

        and tell a lie, before he would stand on the ground and tell the truth, I believe that makes him a LIAR.

        Would like to see him arrested, and tried and convicted of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” or Treason would work better for me.

      • Utter nonsense. Congress has overridden the Constitution, serially and egregiously, for at least 155 years — creating unlawful U.S. ‘money’, unlawful U.S. wars, unlawful U.S. claims on foreign land and resources, unlawful claims, seizure and sale of sovereign property and resources of the states, unlawful creation of agencies, bureaus, departments, projects, programs and entire service branches nowhere authorized by us in the Constitution!

        Ted Cruz taught litigation courses at University of Texas School of Law; specifically courses on U.S. Supreme Court litigation. He was the longest-serving Solicitor General in Texas history. If you think you have a better grasp of Ted Cruz’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency than he does, wait a while and he’ll probably teach you and the other Demoncrats a thing or two.

  12. Alan Grayson is one certification short of institutionalization. He is as nuts as they come, and he drools.

    • yeah, my question as well. Two faced opportunist….. this clown. Look the other way when HIS man is ineligible, threaten legal action when someone he does not like stands…..

  13. Grayson is typical of the complete idiots that have not only taken over the marxsit dumocratic party , but he like that lunatic woman from south Florida haven’t got the brains of an ice cube..

  14. Cruz is a Harvard Law grad which is just as unacceptable as being born in Canada.

    Harvard Law grads have done so much damage to this country over the past 7 years that it is beyond belief. I simply don’t trust Cruz because he is the product of the same stink hole law program that Obama and John Roberts slithered out of. Not to mention Kennedy, Kagin, etc…

    • You may find him unacceptable, and I agree for other reason, but as for not being eligible. He is not eligible. It’s pretty clear in the Constitution. See my explanation in a post below. You may find Obama unacceptable too, but he is indeed technically eligible, like it or not. He has legally accepted proof that he was born in Hawaii, a US state.
      There’s been a lot of candidates that we all may have found unacceptable for a variety of reasons. Of course others may disagree, but “acceptability” is a personal choice thing. Eligibility though, is a technical Constitutional thing. We need to keep acceptability and eligibility separate from each other and not muddy the water because someone who may find a candidate acceptable and differs from us in this opinion, would give credence to the idea that if we think somebody is acceptable, that’s as good as being eligible. We get to individually decide acceptability, but not eligibility.

      • Doesn’t matter much where Obama was born. The requirement the Founders most demanded was that both parents were to be US citizens to avoid any mixed allegiances to foreign governments. This is all extremely well documented.

        • You are absolutely nuts. Where did you get that crap? Read the Constitution. Doesn’t matter what may be written elsewhere by some of the founders. They all had differing opinions. What counts is what they came to agreement on in the Constitution. The “what the founders had in mind” argument is absolutely pointless because they were no different from today and each one had different things in mind. Picking and choosing from your favorite founder is fool’s exercise because the most quoted founders are often quoted correctly to make two different sides of the same argument.

          Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

          No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

          • You *are* a dense one, aren’t you? Cruz meets those criteria. Anyone who thinks his Harvard J.D. degree is somewhat of a disqualifier, Ted Cruz taught a Supreme Court Litigation course at University of Texas School of Law, and was the longest-serving Solicitor General in Texas history.

            Senator Cruz knows where he stands as to eligibility. Your protestations appear awfully desperate, even for the token liberal on this site.

          • Cruz was born in Canada. Not natural born under the common definition or the extremist position that say not only must he be born here but both parents must be citizens. (skipart’s position)
            I see no bearing on being “eligible” depending on where he went to school, his religion, race or sexual preference. These things “qualifications” have no impact on Constitutional eligibility. These might be things some would use to help them make their decisions as to whether or not to vote for him, but that’s not the argument. I have other problems with Cruz, eligible or not. But my point is that he doesn’t meet what the Constitution says.
            I don’t see that it really matters and I’m not at all desperate because Cruz won’t get the nomination. Regular conservatives won’t support him. He’s too far out there. The thing is that we have an extremist wing in the Republican party who at best accounts for 25-30% of all Republicans. Maybe 20% of all Republicans and Independents and barely 10% of all Americans. If you want to call people tokens, that’s your call, but you need to do a reality check. At least 2/3rds of the Republican candidates can not get elected because they are too extreme, that includes both Cruz and Trump. It’s not much different than the fact that Grayson could never get the Democratic nomination if he somehow won, no way could he win the Presidency. He’s too extreme to the other end of the spectrum. However, just like a broken clock, he’s right once in a while. And he’s right about Cruz’ Constitutional eligibility from a literal standpoint.
            As for being “dense”, that might describe someone who sees no difference between eligibility and being qualified. Not the same thing. But guys like Cruz and Trump are destroying the party because we have too many far right extremist in the early primary states who don’t seem to understand that the primary process is about picking someone who can potentially win against the country wide electorate. If you keep steering the party to the extreme right, it will end up in the ditch with not even a remote chance of winning the race.
            Now, as to how the SC might decide the Cruz case. Well, I suspect they might indeed say that he is eligible, if they indeed took the case. (They would probably let the next lower court ruling stand) The reason I think they would possibly decide in his favor is that the interpretation of the Constitution does evolve over time. We have allowed citizenship to foreign born children with an American parent, with certain other qualifiers. Cruz is a citizen, no doubt. The question is whether the court would still support the “natural born” qualifier or rule that it is outdated and only applied to the early days. Funny thing is that the most noted Constitutional purist on the Court, Scalia, would favor the Jus Soli argument that says he must be born on American soil.

  15. Cruz has to produce the paperwork to prove that he is Constitutionally eligible. My bet is that his father, who had such disdain for obeying the laws of Canada or his native Cuba, never properly followed the rules for registering baby Ted. The FBI can easily verify that Cruz’s birth certificate and hospital records are forgeries or otherwise illegal. Let Cruz slither out of that.

    • registering the birth is irrelevant. It is well known Criuz was born in Canada…. and that his Father was a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth. He has said so himself……

      BUT.. oh how I wish this sort of fuss had been made, and followed up, when the kinyun was running for office….. Pelosi should be run up on perjury charges…

      • Once Trump gets through with Cruz, he’ll wish he was born in Africa. What ever happened to “Born in the USA”?

  16. Oh the hypocrisy of it all. Alan Grayson is so far left he has escaped from reason! If Ted Cruz were in his party it would matter if he came from Mars.

  17. A “natural-born citizen” ( as compared to what? a Caesarean section-born citizen?? actually, “native-born citizen” is better and more comprehensible) is a person who is the offspring of two, American citizens. The issue here is a legal arbitrary for legal purposes and goes to the issue of loyalty and allegiance and obligating relations in foreign countries which could present legal problems and undue influence. It is incredible that there are no strict constitutionalists in the Congress who insist on the enforcement of this very basic and essential part of the law to prevent the embarrassments which we have endured for the past 7-plus years. Representing the interests of foreign nations to the people of the United States is not the job of the president of the United States. This alienation factor has been a troubling aspect of the current administration and has caused confusion for all.

    • the term “natural born citizen” is a legal term, has been around for centuries… it means a person born in a country of TWO parents who are CITIZENS of that country. Neither Obama nor Cruz fit that definition, and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. BOTH had non-citizen fathers. And the current resident’s conduct in handling this nation is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid, as far as possible, by putting the Natural BOrn Citizen requreiment on the Presdident and Vice President. Note well, that qualification is NOT in place for any other public office, ONLY the Chief Executive and his Second.

      • I agree 100% with your post. I just don’t understand how Obama got put in office. Law suites going to bed, and no judge would rule against him (Obama)

        It is plain as day in the Constitution MUST be a “natural-born citizen”

        both Father and Mother must be American citizens, not hard to understand that

        The HOW is what I can’t understand. The libs. helped Obama some way or the other, and if they do for one they must do for the other one as well.

        Tried to disqualify John McCain; but both his Father also his Mother was American Citizens, but John McCain was born at the Coco Solo Naval Station in Panama on

        August 29, 1936. The son of an Admiral, McCain enrolled in the Naval Academy. That base was considered, part of the United States because it was a military base. Same as American Soil.

        • No place on earth is “American soil”, just for being a plundered military base! Give me a break; have you actually READ the Constitution? Show me the clause where We The People allow our servant government to claim ANY soil other than those places stipulated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

          ‘tionico’, you are wrong in your interpretation. Not TWO American parents; only an American mother…or the kid has to be born on American soil, to parents from anywhere on earth (so-called ‘anchor babies’, created by perverting the 14th Amendment, which was only meant for Negro children of African slaves brought here against their will).

  18. Grayson has long demonstrated his sanity is questionable. This is just more of the same. His constituency should be be ashamed of themselves and simply recall him.

  19. Grayson should file the suit. Get it out in the open and settle it now!! We don’t need another Obama issue on this topic. Cruz will have way too much to do fixing Obummer’s screw-ups without having this hung over his head.

  20. Alan Grayson is obviously an idiot, but he calls himself a “Democrat”, so he is. There are no Democrats anymore, they ALL are Democratic Socialist’s. The Democratic Party has been “moled in” by Socialist’s for decades. His Party nominated a candidate which was not a “natural born citizen and “Democratic Socialist Party member” at the time. Get over it Alan.

    • Decades? Democrat party? Ha!

      Actually, there are only communists in D.C. — if one uses Karl Marx’s 1848 Communist Manifesto as definitive communism. Since at least the Woodrow Wilson administration *ONE CENTURY AGO*, eight of the 10 points of Marx’s manifesto have been federal policy. Thus, definitive communism.

      Don’t try to let the GOP off the hook, either. They push all the same communist garbage on us as the donkeys do.

      Moreover, the GOP was Lincoln’s party — and Lincoln was the original hijacker of the US Constitution. If you doubt this, read John Denson’s “A Century of War”, or Tom DiLorenzo’s “Lincoln Unmasked”, or Benson & Kennedy’s “Lincoln’s Marxists”, or just chapter four of my new book “Fear The People”, that you can save $35 and download for free (in PDF) at our website’s blog. Scroll down the blog to the book, click on the download link, and read Chapter Four. You will freak out at what you didn’t learn in school or university.

      http://AmericaAgain.net

      • First, I want to apologize if I sounded like my statements disagreed. I re-read my comments on a different article when I was awestruck that it had gaping holes in the sentences. I am asking you if you have seen any such occurrences yourself, but I am hoping that it was a fluke due to using an Apple iPad to make the comments. I have seen sentences that there were words substituted by the Apple OS, that were actually ridiculous. I had a friend actually ask if I was drinking at the time I made tha comments. I have no “work around” to fix it except to “re-read” any comment I make.
        Again, sorry
        Harry

        • Nothing to apologize for, Harry. I am just pointing out that Washington DC (both parties; the whole DC organized crime machine) has been literally Communist for over a century. You can’t call the donkey party ‘socialist’ and let the elephants off the hook. They all eat out of the same trough — the payroll Accounts of hard-working Americans — and spread the ‘wealth’ to all the parasitic types who will vote for them. BOTH parties do it.

          The only solution is to begin by removing Congress from DC entirely. See the 5-minute video here, explaining how we intend to do it:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuoyNKXGXN4&feature=youtu.be

  21. Because it’s grayson running off with the mouth this article should never have be written. grayson’s a complete moronic Jackass and the fact that he’s a politician in florida proves just how stupid and asinine the people in florida are. This guy’s Irrelevant and anything he says doesn’t justify being printed.

    • even if what he says is correct and accurete…. which it, sadly enough, just happens to be? Even a jackass can speak the truth, and it is no less truth for his speaking it.

      • Nonsense. Ted Cruz is a ‘natural born citizen’, born to an American mother who happened to live in Canada at the time of his birth.

        Look at the *millions* of ‘Americans’ born here to Mexican, Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, etc mothers. Anchor babies, they are called. The government says they are ‘natural born citizens’. Are you telling me that Ted Cruz, born to an AMERICAN mother living for a spell in Canada, is NOT a ‘natural born citizen’?

        So far, the legal experts and courts disagree with you. The SCOTUS has never taken up such a case, and if they do, Ted Cruz will appear *pro se* and prove this point.

    • Please don’t include me in that comment, I live in Florida, transplanted from Tennessee. But a whole bunch of libturds live around where Grayson resides, Near Orlando, Mickey Mouse Country.

  22. WHAT ABOUT OVOMIT? BETTER GET TO FINDING HIS ACTUAL MUSLIM KENYA BORN IDENTITY…WORRY ABOUT WHAT IS…RATHER THAN WHAT MIGHT BE…IDIOTS..

    • Assuming you mean Obama, whether we like it or not, the only legally accepted proof of his birth says he was born in Hawaii, a US state. He’s legally a natural born, US citizen. That makes him eligible. Whether or not he is a Muslim, is not a question that impacts his eligibility. The Constitution says we have to accept all religions. We get to make our own minds up about whether or not we find somebody acceptable to us to vote for and we can use whatever criteria we want. Age, sex, skin color, eye color, height, religion, you name it, it’s your individual choice.
      But eligibility is something else. We can question it, but we don’t get to make the call. It’s a legal Constitutional thing. We don’t get to decide that, it’s up to the Supreme Court if we challenge it.
      Face it, Obama is legally eligible according to the Constitution. But Cruz was born in Canada, not the US. He is not natural born. He is a citizen, but he is not eligible. We may find him acceptable, but we can’t twist the Constitution to make him eligible. Doesn’t matter if 90% of the country liked Cruz and wanted to give him a pass on eligibility, we can’t. Just like it wouldn’t matter if 90% hated Obama, that doesn’t change eligibility. Grayson has a right to challenge the question of Cruz’ eligibility in the Courts. It is a legitimate question. Cruz doesn’t deny being born in Canada. His opinion is that he fits the idea of being natural born. Some others agree, some others don’t. But these are opinions and not what the Constitution actually says. The Constitution made exceptions for the early days when there technically were no natural born US citizens at least 35 years old. There weren’t even US citizens before July 4th 1776 or even later when the Constitution was ratified. So they needed to make some exceptions. But all those eligibility exceptions died a long time ago.
      I don’t like Cruz and wouldn’t vote for him, but I don’t get to decide his eligibility and have to accept what the Constitution says. I’m pretty clear on what the Constitution says, but it’s being questioned, so Grayson has every right to challenge. I’ll accept what the Court decides, like it or not.
      I’m an adult and realize that whether or not I like something, doesn’t make it so. You hate Obama. You hate Muslims. Fine, that’s your right. But it’s crystal clear that Obama is eligible to be President based on being legally a natural born citizen and the religion issue has no bearing whatsoever, regardless of whether he’s a Muslim or not. Time to grow up and be an adult. You might consider taking the Caps Lock off too, it just makes you look like a nut case. You’ll give those with legitimate questions about similar things a bad name.

  23. No one know where obozo came from, but there’s no question that he’s the most unpatriotic person ever in the White House.

    • He came from Kenya and was born to a Muslim father. Therefore, according to the Muslim religion he is a Muslim. He bashes Christians at every opportunity and extols the magnificence of Islam.

    • No; that would be Dishonest Abe Lincoln, who hijacked the Constitution, gave us the first ‘greenbacks’, the first full-time standing army (that the Founding Fathers uniformly preached against), killed 750,000 American soldiers (not to mention non-combatant dead and wounded), and destroyed entire American cities. Adjusted for population growth, that would be like a president that suckered us into a war between ourselves resulting in 6.8 million dead Americans, and cities burned to the ground.

      Read…

      ‘A Century of War’ (John Denson)
      ‘Lincoln Unmasked’ (Thomas DiLorenzo)
      ‘America’s Caesar’ (by Greg Durand)
      ‘Lincoln’s Marxists’ (by Benson & Kennedy)

      So definitely, Lincoln was the most ruthless, unpatriotic president ever. He was the first communist in the White House (read Benson & Kennedy’s book; Abe Lincoln was bosom buddies with Karl Marx). So Hussein Obongo is just the last in a long line of communist presidents, and lawless tyrants.

      Other ruthless monsters were Teddy Roosevelt, who began plundering the earth as an unconstitutional empire (read Evan Thomas’ book, ‘The War Lovers’)…Tom ‘Woodrow’ Wilson who gave us the FED cartel, the IRS, and the UN (read Denson’s book above, or Ronald Pestritto’s book, ‘Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism’), and FDR, who made lawless government bigger and more powerful than ever, and who tricked America into war via the Pearl Harbor trap (again, read Denson’s book, above).

      There is plenty of treachery to go around among past presidents. Dubya was a fine liar and murderer, too, with his part in the 9/11 scam. I designed buildings for 28 years, and no structural engineer worth his salt would ever, EVER agree that the first three occasions in history of pulverizing, axial free-fall collapse of steel structures were caused by an aircraft collision (WTC Building 7 had no airplane impact at all). Those were textbook controlled demolitions, all three of them. I don’t know who did it, but those airplanes sure as Hell did not.

      So that makes Dubya a treasonous, lying bas#$@d, too. But yes, Obongo ius a bad one; no doubt about it.

  24. Thats what losers do best. Resort to insults or sue for money $$$$. It wont work. What hate is in the liberals when they can’t win fair and square. He needs to go after 100 million dollar Hillary.

  25. “The U.S. Constitution says presidential candidates have to be “natural-born citizens.” But the Supreme Court has never weighed in with a definition, leaving it open to interpretation. It’s a
    question that has come up before. In 2008, senators passed a resolution, making it clear, for example, that John McCain was allowed to run given that he was born on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both senators then, voted for it. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP nominee, was born in Arizona when it was a territory — not a state. And some questioned George Romney’s eligibility to run in 1968, because he was born in Mexico. Romney’s parents were U.S. residents. Cruz’s parents worked in the oil industry in Calgary, Canada, when he was born. His mother was born in the United States. His father was born in Cuba, but later became a U.S. resident. Cruz argues that because his mother was born in Delaware, he is, in fact, a “natural-born citizen.”

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution state, “No Person except a natural born Citizen…..

    And most legal scholars agree. In fact, two of the best-known Supreme Court lawyers — who are not normally on the same side — make the case that Cruz, as were McCain, George Romney and Goldwater, is eligible to run. Neal Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clement, who was solicitor general under George W.Bush, wrote earlier this month in the Harvard Law Review that “there is no question” Cruz is eligible. They say that because Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen and his father was a U.S. resident, “Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution” and the “Naturalization Act of 1790.”They also point to British common law and enactments by the First Congress, both of which have been cited by the Supreme Court.
    “Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent. As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used ‘natural born’ to encompass such children. These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were ‘natural-born Subjects … to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.’
    “The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like ‘natural born,’ since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries, a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.
    “No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were ‘natural born Citizens.’ The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that ‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. …’

    “The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ that included persons born
    abroad to citizen parents.”

    Katyal and Clement conclude, “There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility
    issues.”

    • A good summary; thanks for that. What I tell people who want to argue the ‘birther’ question with Cruz is just this: Senator Cruz taught Supreme Court Litigation courses at UT Law School, and was our longest-serving Solicitor General. If the fellow thought he had an eligibility problem, he would not have put his hat in the ring. He is the most serious constitutional scholar (by far) of the candidates. He makes Obama look like a flea, by comparison (whatever the Kenyan may say about teaching law at Harvard).

      • Thank you. All people need to is search for the truth. It’s out there, except where Obama is concerned. It’s as if he has no past.

  26. I guess all the morons in that district put that fool nut case back in the House. He will sue one of the top legal minds in the Country (LOL)!

  27. this man is correct.. this information on Ted Cruz has been public for a long time, no attempts made to deny, qualify, explain it. QUite simply, Cruz is NOT eligible, as the details of his birth and parentage stated above are correct. This is sad, but I do believe it would be better for him to leave the race now, get behind someone who thinks a lot like he does, and help HIM win/ Cruz could then serve in some important cabinat position, or continue calling liars and deadbeats on the carpet as a Senator. But President? Can’t happen legally.

    There IS a seriious conflict here, as the Dems and liberals and left have made such a big stink about the kinyun’s “persecution”, every court in which his disqualified states has been challenged skirted the issue and instead dismissed on “lack of standing”, and “no harm done”, etc. For the Dems to go after Cruz right after the election would PROVE they are only all on about the power game,

    Either we are a nation under law, or we are a nation under the whim of the powerbrokers. Which will it be? Either the COnstitution has meaning and value, and we won’t let Cruz run, or it has no value, and we run him and elect him anyway. Had this law been upheld by the Bush admin at about this point in the election, we’d not have the kinyun. And we’d not so desparatel NEED a man of Cruz’ character and values.
    Trouble is, if we go ahead and let him stand for office as Presdient, and he wins….. the lawsuits WILL come. If the liberty-stealers lay in wait then strike when the timing precludes a reasonable fix, they win. Can you miagine the kinyun declaring himself president for more time…..

    • As I said above, the Constitution is NOT obeyed in Washington DC; not in the least! If you are going to quibble about the most constitutionally astute candidate for the White House in 100 years being ineligible *because it violates the Constitution*, then why in God’s name, do you not say a word about the $100 trillion counterfeiting crimes of Washington D.C. for 145 years now, OPENLY violating the Constitution?

      Why do you not talk about the several trillion dollars annually in crimes against the Constitution in the very *existence* of hundreds of agencies, bureaus, departments, and programs NOWHERE authorized in the Constitution?

      Why are you not livid about the wholesale seizure, occupation and tyrannical control of 640 million acres of STATE public lands (and the oil & gas beneath them) by federal government, in clear violation of the Constitution?

      Why do you not complain about the open, arrogant establishment of huge cities, disguised as ‘military bases’ but in reality only security compounds for the U.S. oil industry on foreign soil, operated at ZERO cost to those oil companies — in clear violation of the Constitution?

      Give me a break. If Americans gave a damn about violating the Constitution, every last member of Congress, every justice on the SCOTUS, and Bammy would all be indicted on at least the seven felony counts mentioned in this video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFqE5G7ugI

  28. Ted Cruz is not qualified. He is not a natural born citizen. Natural born means both parents must be US citizens before the child is born. Jindahl and Rubio are two others that are not qualified. The last 7/8 years should be erased from U.S. history.

    • Your vocabulary is wrong; it is ‘not eligible’ rather than ‘not qualified’. Cruz is arguably the most qualified candidate for the White House in a century, or more.

      Your definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is also wrong.

  29. ALAN GRAYSON IS REALLY MENTALLY SICK HE IS SO FULL OF HOT AIR AND AND HE DON’T KNOW THE DIF BETWEEN A HOLE IN THE GROUND AND A HOLE IN HIS ASS THAT IS ALL IT IS

  30. Grayson cannot win a 5-minute debate against Cruz. Stay where you are Alan; you haven’t got it! Cruz will tear you apart.

  31. Grayson was, is, and always will be a total jackass. The only thing that is more contemptible than Mr. Grayson are the fools who voted for him and put him in office to inflict his bigoted views on the rest of us.

  32. Esob sold his birthright for a bowl of lentil stew. Obama sold his for college tuition.
    Grayson studiously suppresses the part where Obama renounced his US citizenship to qualify for college education programs reserved for poor foreigners. (Once an asp…).

Leave a Reply