The conservative media's civil war over Ted Cruz 'birtherism'

Washington Post ^ | 01/14/2016 | By Callum Borchers

[SeekAndFind]

If you thought some in the conservative media lost their minds over President Obama's birth certificate, you were right. But the current brouhaha over Ted Cruz's place of birth -- in which Donald Trump reprises his role as chief instigator -- might be even more compelling, in its own way, because of the civil war it has sparked on the right side of the press.

Sadly, there is no way that Ted Cruz can continue running in the Republican Primary unless he can erase doubt on eligibility. Dems will sue!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2016

Witness this week's heated exchange on MSNBC (of all places) between conservative provocateur Ann Coulter and Republican media strategist Liz Mair. Coulter insisted that Cruz -- born in Canada but a U.S. citizen from the moment he left the womb, thanks to his mother's citizenship -- is not eligible to be president. Mair asserted with equal force that Cruz is eligible and at one point charged that Coulter is "in no way conservative." Card revoked!

(Coulter is an ardent supporter of Trump, the GOP presidential front-runner; Mair heads the anti-Trump super PAC Make America Awesome.)

And Coulter -- for those keeping score -- has changed her position on this subject. That's awfully convenient, since no one would stand to gain more from Cruz's disqualification than Coulter's favorite candidate.

[TBP]

Between this and the phony Goldman Sachs nonissue, the Establishment and its allies are trying not just to defeat Cruz, but to destroy him personally.

It’s shameful, but he’s the one who scares them. They can work with the others.

Don’t do the Establishment’s work for them.

[Timber Rattler]

It’s the exact same kind of crap that was done to Palin, and the shame of it is that there are many otherwise respectable Freepers (and some who are not) who are up to their eyeballs in it this go around.

[dowcaet]

I support Cruz but if he is the nominee this issue won’t go away. If you’re mad at Trump over this just think how much more intensified the Democrats will be on this issue. Every day from the conventions to the election the Dems and the media will do everything they can to plant the seeds of doubt in enough voters about Cruz’s eligibility to be president. With no pushback from the GOP the left will have a field day bashing Cruz. You’ll see Ted morphed into a Mountie or a hockey player by late night comedians and the endless stream of lefty talking heads will “question” his “natural born” status. Get mad at me for saying all this, but we know in our gut this will happen.

[Red Steel]

You’re correct.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

Nobody knows for a fact that he was a U.S. citizen from the “time he left his mother’s womb”. That doesn’t happen automatically, and we’ve yet to see the documentation that it did.

[TBP]

They can’t stand a tough-minded, principled, outspoken conservative who might rock the boat, whether it’s Sarah or Ted.

A bunch of pseudocons, if you ask me.

[longfellow]

Are you kidding me, maybe Ted can come up with 11 more ss #’s.
And a bs birth certificate.

[KGeorge]

How many days has it been? (I honestly don’t know) It’s pretty obvious that such documentation will not be forthcoming- either because it isn’t possible or out of stubbornness.

The correlations between Ted Cruz and Barack 0bama grow clearer by the day.

[hoosiermama]

CRUZ supporters want to
Blame it on Trump.
In reality it’s coming from Texan republicans Cruz has made some enemies there

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm

And

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/709365

[Read Write Repeat]

It's the exact same kind of crap that was done to Palin

Chuck or Sarah Heath weren't US citizens?!

[Hostage]

Coulter’s an ass but here’s what Ted should do now:

* File a pre-emptive lawsuit against McConnell, McCain, Trump, and any others including democrats and members of the press who have stated that or alluded to his ineligibility ASKING FOR EXPEDITED DECLARATORY RELIEF.

* Continue to run for President stating in all venues that he is eligible and stating his estimate of when the ruling will be issued, AND that he is legally on the ballot for the primary states assuring voters that their vote is not wasted.

Ted frankly should have done this last year AFTER he formally filed a request for a Senate Resolution. McConnell has since said there will be no such resolution (I effing detest McConnell) even though one was made for the fraud called McCain. And McCain has since said Cruz is ineligible (McCain should have been fragged in Nam).

[Macoozie]

Love Our Man Ted, but he ain’t a NBC.

The trouble is, with the Imposter in Residence in the White Hut, does it matter anymore?
The Constitution has been shredded.
If Obama can be Pres, then anyone can be. If he can’t be Pres, how do you undo all of the damage he has caused with EVERY action he undertook since 2008?

Get it out in the open NOW, because Her Thighness will NEVER let this issue go.

The Donald would only have standing to bring action once something legal takes place. An otherwise in-eligible candidate can run for the office, can even be nominated. But the folks who sign the documents attesting to fitness for office will be the first parties to a lawsuit.

Sort of like the issue Pelosi went through with her side-stepping the eligibility issue back in the last cycle. She didn’t sign anything incriminating. Remember?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Love Our Man Ted, but he ain’t a NBC.

Can you present for us, a good constitutional argument for that?

[AuntB]

“File a pre-emptive lawsuit against McConnell, McCain, Trump, and any others including democrats and members of the press who have stated that or alluded to his ineligibility ASKING FOR EXPEDITED DECLARATORY RELIEF.”

Ted would have to sue himself!

In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race

Must read! [snip]http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm

“Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”
Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don’t have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”
Cruz: “I would agree.””
Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”
Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”
Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”
Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. [snip]

[WENDLE]

There is no war with anybody. Article II of the constitution doesn’t say one is eligible for the presidency if one is a “citizen”. We all know Cruz is a citizen. The language added to Citizen by the framers was “Natural Born” . The scholars generally agree including Harvard constitutional professors that the term means “on US Soil” . But the court can decide. If anyone believes the Democrats won’t raise this issue if he gets the nomination as President or Vice President— please advise. I have some bottom land in the swamp.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

[Carl Vehse]

Behind the Blue Wall @6: Nobody knows for a fact that he was a U.S. citizen from the "time he left his mother's womb".

Well, yes we do. That's what "natural born" means: from the time a person leaves his mother's womb and is born.

That doesn't happen automatically, and we've yet to see the documentation that it did.

Well, yes we have, as well as the birth certificate of his mother.

[mongrel]

Trump knows how to engineer the kill shot to bring it front and center. That’s what he’s done.

Sadly, there is no way that Donald Trump can continue running in the Republican Primary unless he can erase doubt about being a weasel concern troll.

[jpsb]

THE "CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1934": On 24 May, Congress makes a major change to the "citizenship law" to now enable U.S. citizen mothers to also transmit U.S. citizenship at birth abroad. But for the first time the law now also creates a new burden by imposing a mandatory "subsequent five year residence requirement" in the United States, prior to reaching age eighteen, and an "oath of allegiance requirement" within six months of the child's twenty-first birthday, for any child born abroad to parents, one of whom is an alien. The new law states

Actual Text from 1934

Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization." (Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.)

The "naturalization act" of 1934 makes Ted Cruz a US Citizen by birth, however the son of a Cuban, born in Canada to an American mother is no way, no how, a natural born citizen of the United States. Cruz is a naturalized US citizen, naturalized a birth by the 1934 legislation and follow up legislation.