Says two candidates are not eligible for president

To the editor:

In (a recent) Sentinel “Letters to the Editor” section there was listed a number of those who might be considered for presidential candidacy. I must admit I was impressed by the list which obviously leaned toward those who focused on conservative ideals. But I was disappointed to see names of some that are not eligible to be nominated to be president of these United States, to wit: (Sen. Ted) Cruz (R-Texas) and (Sen. Marco) Rubio (R-Fla.).

Let me make my point clear. Only once in our constitution was the distinction of “natural-born citizen” and “citizen” made and that was in regard to the eligibility to be President of the United States. The framers were guided by the renowned Emmerich de Vattel and his “Law of Nations” and in fact Benjamin Franklin passed out a number of copies for reading to those in attendance at the convention. To further make the point on eligibility there is also the time the U.S. Supreme Court did define the class of persons who were eligible to be president under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

I contend that Cruz, who was born in Canada to a father who was at that time a Cuban citizen and a mother who was an American living in Canada would not be natural-born but instead, even to this day, a dual citizen, Canadian/American. Then there is Rubio who was born to Cuban citizens who came to this country and were still Cuban citizens traveling back and forth to Cuba holding Cuban passports at the time of Rubio’s birth. Neither of his parents became U.S. citizens until four years after he was born. Both of these men are “citizens” of the United States either by having been born on American soil or born to one parent being an American citizen but they are not “natural-born citizens” under any concept of that meaning as intended by the founders.

I would love it if they were eligible because of their non-socialistic stances and I cannot ignore the fact of one now sitting in the Oval Office whose eligibility to be president was never legally nor constitutionally established. Nor should anyone ignore the goal of many to dismantle our Constitution one page at a time so as to satisfy their own destructive agenda.

Our constitution needs to be protected, not be selectively ignored to satisfy those who have no respect for its provisions.

Diane Logan