I don’t mean to be a negative nitpicker, determined to shoot down the best hopes of traditional conservatives, but before everyone jumps on the Ted Cruz for President bandwagon, it seems that those who champion the cause of “The Rule of Law” should first address the question of Senator Cruz’s Constitutional eligibility to be President of the United States. It’s either that or publicly admit to being hypocrites who only use the rule of law argument when it suites our purposes.
The question is, what is a “natural born citizen,” which Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to be. If it means having at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, then both Cruz and Obama are equally eligible. If it means that both parents must be U.S. citizens, then neither Cruz nor Obama is eligible. If it means being born on U.S. soil, then we know that Cruz was not while Obama’s actual place of birth has been disputed for the better part of a decade now.
Attorney, professor of law, Constitutional scholar and Constitution Party 1996 Vice Presidential nominee, Dr. Herb Titus, holds that a natural born citizen is one whose parents are both U.S. citizens. Dr. Titus refers to Biblical precedent, something which our nation’s founders relied upon heavily in the framing of our form of government. I encourage everyone, especially Ted Cruz supporters, to consider Dr. Titus’ comments on the matter beginning at the 7:00 minute mark in this interview http://www.cynthiadavis.net/what-is-a-natural-born-citizen/.
Whichever view one might hold with regard to the definition of a natural born citizen, what seems apparent is that conservatives need to either ask Senator Curz to recuse himself from seeking the Presidency or apologize to Barack Obama for years of harassment over his birth certificate and the question of his actual place of birth.
_____________
For more thoughts on the Ted Cruz candidacy, listen to the March 25 edition of “The Castle Report” and read “Ted Cruz: Pros And Cons” by 2008 Constitution Party Presidential candidate, Pastor Chuck Baldwin.
Perspective 
“Dr. Titus refers to Biblical precedent, something which our nation’s founders relied upon heavily in the framing of our form of government.”
Not really. The founders specifically created a separation of church and state. Read Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli 1797.
“By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers. ”
You are free to practice your religion, but please stop trying to interpret life through religion.