Posted on 01/17/2016 5:18:24 PM PST by usafa92
Mark Levin has spent years defending the Constitution, his radio show bumpers refer to him as "Mr. Constitution". In his view, the constitutional debates and the views of the founding fathers should determine its meaning.
Levin has abandoned this standard in his defense of Ted Cruz's eligibility to run for President. This is evident in at least two ways - ignoring the founders' intentions and arguments, and suggesting that there are only two types of citizenship: naturalized and natural born. Levin revisits this issue with exasperation every day, knocking Mr. Trump and others for discussing it. Last week he referred to the issue as a 'turd in the swimming pool'. Let's examine it.
Canada is a possession of the English Crown. The analog in the founders time was England itself. Levin is suggesting that a person born after the founding, in England, with English citizenship, to parents of mixed allegiance, would have passed the founders' scrutiny. That idea should seem absurd on its face.
(Excerpt) Read more at trumpcampaignanalysis.blogspot.com ...
One of the dumbest posts I've read on FR since 1999.
The issue wasn't ripe. Any suit would have been dismissed as speculative without an actual case in controversy.
I don't care whether Trump or Cruz gets the nomination but this type of cr@p posted on FR these days is nauseating.
Which begs the question...are there that many retarded Trumpbots on FR or is someone paying third world monkeys to astroturf this garbage?
I don’t need to cite squat. This is not even an issue. Left to nuts and conspiracy theorists until the past week. Obama served a damn term without even producing a birth certificate. This is simply a circus act.
If the Supremes ruled “two US citizens” that could certainly open a large can of worms. As in Obama.
So I don’t think that will happen.
Ah, but which is correct when two lawyers from Harvard disagree? Answer? They are both right... until a court decides.
Of course not, because you cannot and are unable to do so.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
Provided
, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
Provided
, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)
Bingo. My point is that Cruz has not even provided the proof (at least administratively) to establish that he is a U.S. citizen. The CRBA and U.S. passport would satisfy that requirement. NBC is another issue. My contention is that the language stating “acquire citizenship at birth” by it’s plain reading is different than NBC. If you were a NBC there would be no need to acquire citizenship.
Negative on the immigration and lawyer, but AF Finance and Acquisitions background and now corporate finance. Lots of contracts, fine print and details on a daily basis. But this is pretty plain stuff. Ted can silence a lot of the noise with a little effort.
Isn’t that the same court that said that unborn children (even up to the moment of birth) are not human beings?
Isn’t that the same court that just ruled that homosexual marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right?
You want those clowns to decide this issue?
Really?
Are you serious?
I agree that the two decisions referenced in your rely are repugnant and beyond comprehension. I am pro-life and believe that homosexuals should stay in the closet, with the door locked.
However, obama has publicly ridiculed SCOTUS at the State of the Union, and maybe they would like to have an opportunity to decide the NBC issue and let obama twist in the wind..he richly deserves it.
Remote, probably, but certainly plausible...
He’s not impartial
And he will never understand the South
Pity
She registered his birth with the U.S. consulate, Frazier said, and the future senator received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England...
Yes it does, thank you. I wonder why it is not available?
The quote is from a campaign spokesperson who also stated that to “their knowledge” Ted was not a Canadian citizen. Ted can produce his CRBA. Should be very easy to do.
Lets look at the issue.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father. That makes him an American citizen, none of us know if it means natural born citizen because that has never been defined.
I have read the Wong court decision. Does that mean any anchor baby can be a future president?
Mcconnel had the chance to address this and could have said “Cruz is a citizen so it is a non-issue” ......instead he chose to say, “I just don’t think the Senate ought to get into the middle of this, These guys will all slug it out in Iowa and New Hampshire. We’ll have a nominee hopefully by sometime in the spring.†He certainly didn’t have Ted’s back.
You can be damn sure a president elect Cruz would be legally challenged by the dems (and probably some republicans). What if one of them actually “has standing”? Then what? If he is found to be legitimate by the courts, there will always be that “??” surrounding his presidency, Remember W? If found ineligible then who is president? Vice president elect? Dem candidate? Or does the king retain his crown?
This will continue to be a problem for Cruz, both in the primary and the general election. Blaming Trump or Tribe isn’t going to make it go away.
Well, thing is my opinion rules my world. Here I am the judge, president, king and Elvis.
But I expect we will see how this is going to play out in places that aren’t my world, which is basically everywhere else.
Fact is this is a problem. There are people who dispute him, and they intend to make themselves known and heard.
That’s why I say I would very much appreciate this being settled by an authority ASAP. It’s ridiculous to leave this matter out there.
Well, once he does there is the problem that it shows he is a citizen by statute in my understanding. Canadian law definitely says though that he is a natural born Canadian.
You're pro life?
Is there a candidate on the scene who is more pro life than Ted Cruz?
You honestly think the Supreme Court should decide this issue?
The 20th Amendment apparently gives that sole power to the electoral college and Congress and only after the electors are sent to the electoral college.
Where in the Constitution does it say that someone who might not be "eligible" or "qualified" is not entitled to run.
In fact, the 20th Amendment assumes that someone who is not qualified can make it all the way to the electoral college and become the president elect.
So the courts would have no Constitutional authority to even make a decision as to whether or not Cruz is qualified.
So who, in your mind should decide this issue?
The same court that has ruled that Abortion is a fundamental constitutional right as enshrined in the founders intent as any of the enumerated rights?
The same court that ruled that Homosexual marriage is a sacrosanct Constitutional right?
Again. Are you serious?
It's a frickin' con game. And it will work.
To support his claim Cruz would have to overcome the statute itself, the entire history of U.S. naturalization statutes, the SCOTUS precedent in Bellei, the dicta in Ark, the exemplar case of Churchill, all of which show that he is a citizen by statute, i.e. a naturalized citizen, and not eligible to be President.
Read through any of cboldt’s postings on this topic. Does a great job of explaining the various scenarios that exist.
Will do.
You are probably right. I know you are right about it being a con game.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.