Ted Cruz (Sen, R-TX) is said to be considering a run for the US Presidency in 2016, or perhaps even at some other time in the future. At least this is the Washington buzz in conservative circles. Mr Cruz has publicly declared he is too busy serving the people of Texas to seriously contemplate such a move at this time.

I’m willing to take him at his word, but is he even constitutionally eligible to run? Mr Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. He is in precisely the same position that President Obama’s critics cited when they claimed the latter was born in Kenya, of an American mother and a Kenyan father.

Although Mr Obama declared he was born in Hawaii, his critics refused to accept his claim and proposed he was constitutionally ineligible to be President. If that is the case, the only difference between Cruz and Obama is that Cruz freely admits he was born in Canada, while in Obama’s case there was a dispute.

There are historical precedents. Alexander Hamilton could not run for President because he was born in the British West Indies before there was a United States.

John McCain was born in a US-Flag Naval facility in the Panama Canal Zone, where the USA had jurisdiction, and both his parents were American. George Romney was born in Mexico, but both his parents were still American citizens at the time of his birth. Barry Goldwater was born in the Territory of Arizona before it became a state. In none of those cases was any serious objection made to the candidacy of any of those gentlemen.

But in the case of Mr Cruz, I cannot see how he can be eligible to run when he freely concedes his birth status is identical to the exact same illegitimate status that Mr Obama was accused of having.

Conservatives are now seriously proposing that Cruz would make a viable opponent to Hillary in the next election, or to some other Democrat down the line. How can this be?