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 ...
I did not :)
I did. These people probably did not
“Only Trump had the balls to raise the issue of the fraud B.C. at the time.”
you remember everything Mark Levin said on his radio show that many years ago..? My hat is off to you!!
I posted examples of the fraudulent nature of the long forum birth certificate within minutes of it in fact being released!! No I don’t have a Radio Show..and in fact have several other responsibilities aside from pointing out graphic hoaxes...Im certain Mr Levin is a rather Busy man himself
Payola to work in New York.
Cruz won’t raise the money to run and the GOPe is happy with Hillary.
Only Trump can DESTROY the Republican party. Destroy it absolutely and we can make something else.
Nobody was talking about defending our border, keeping out Muslims, or any other conservative issues.
Trump has BALLS.
He’s all we got, basically. It’s either that or lose with Cruz.
If you are going to quote Tribe around here, even if what he says is reasonable, you better have your rabies shots up to date. You are about to get bitten by rabid Cruz hounds.
He may not be a conservative but he will kick butt keeping this country safe. Cruz will be ok but he will be to lawyerly for my taste. We need to stop this PC stuff with keeping America safe and I think Trump will go full bore. Cruz will be to much like “well that is not the American Way” crap which is one reason we are in the mess we are.
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President (and VP), it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Below is a link to tThe magnificent Trump introducing Ted Cruz (not so long ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSv_PBjS3EY
I love Mark. He’s not perfect.
With some of the Trumpophiles around here I suppose I probably should tag those with a giant [S]
I think that until a case gets to scotus the issue will remain. unfortunately the progressives have so screwed up the judiciary that a Hillary or Bernie presidency will effectively eliminate the 2nd amendment and thus the constitution. Jeb\Rubio\cruse are better but still won’t get to original intent. Donald who the hell knows.
If you look at Europe and its citizenship laws you can see where we went off track. If you want to understand the origin of the issue see the “law of nations” I posted an extensive post here in 2007-9 on the understanding of the founders of what a natural born was and why they exempted themselves. In a nutshell it has to do with allegiance. The founders didn’t want a president that might have any allegiance to another state. Under the understanding of the time nationality flowed through the father. Thus if a French man had a child in china the kid was French(natural). If the same man pledged allegiance to Austria and had a child in china the child would be a non natural Austrian Citizen. How ever if the child was born in Austria he would be a natural born sovereign.
IF I STATED that I’d heard some rather dark rumors about TRUMP but will for the sake of decent not divulge them here.......” folks would DEMAND to KNOW what id claimed to have heard.
Trumps slumped lower than the average sloth with this ISSUE TACTIC
its a part of his NYC Values evidently
Are you really claiming that???
And as a principled conservative you are OK with Trump's claim of "pay to play"???
Conservatives are about no one is above the law, or at least we used to be...
Paranoid much?
What, exactly, is Levin’s constitutional argument that Cruz is eligible to be President? All I’ve heard him do is to attack anyone who dares to broach the issue as “a nutjob,” or, in the case of Professor Lawrence Tribe, as a “left-winger.” How does any of that lead to a winning argument that could be presented in briefing before a federal court? Just curious.
and all persons born in those [Virgin] islands on or after February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States at birth.The careful reader will notice that these citizens at birth may have two alien parents.All persons born in the island of Guam on or after April 11, 1899 (whether before or after August 1, 1950) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States
They are citizens at birth, and using Levin-logic, they are NBC of the US.
If Levin studied this, he would know that "naturalized" is an act of Congress that confers citizenship, where citizenship would not otherwise exist. It can attach naturalized citizenship unconditionally and automatically (see Virgin Island, Guam, one citizen parent plus residence), or it can impose some sort of naturalization process.
Levin is a putz and a tool. His credibility is going to take a self-inflicted hit on this excursion of his.
Oh, see too Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the case that would not exist if Mr. Bellei was not naturalized.
I will not banter with you, I have read to many of your posts and your bio. Naps, I do respect you, I disagree strongly with your prescription. God bless you and the your family!!!
There was one case and it did not involve a natural born citizen. It involved the legal status of a Chinese born in LA to two chinese national parents who at the time of the case were living in China at their home.
That is not a natural born. That is a happenstance of a at best un-naturalized person who never requested it and then did to get back into the country.
Wrongly decided to compound the issue.
And it led to anchor babies...
In the last debate he said Cruz might be his VP pick.
It’s just part of the game. “Strictly business.”
Arguments used in the justification of a ruling are NOT determinate of anything.
They are no more significant than a legal footnote in their ramifications and no more legally consequential than a dissent.
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.