Posted on 01/10/2016 5:29:53 PM PST by VinL
After days of coyly raising questions about Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president, given that he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, Donald Trump let his audience weigh in at a rally Sunday afternoon.
"Is he a natural-born citizen?" the Republican White House hopeful asked several thousand gathered in a Reno ballroom. Members of the crowd shouted back, "No!"
"I don't know," Trump said. "Honestly, we don't know. Who the hell knows."
Cruz was Trump's No. 1 target during the 65-minute event, revealing just how much of a threat the Republican senator from Texas has become to the front-runner. Before the rally started, Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." blared, a new edition to Trump's playlist.
"So, Cruz is a problem," Trump said, beginning an attack that lasted about seven minutes. "And here's the problem: It's called uncertainly. It's called you just don't know."
Cruz has repeatedly said there is no question that he is eligible for the presidency, saying this weekend that "the Constitution and federal law are clear that the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen." Cruz's campaign has yet to respond to Trump's latest comments.
But Trump said Sunday that "this is not a settled matter" and that he's not the only one raising questions. He said if Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, the Democrats could challenge his eligibility in lawsuits that could drag on for years.
"Does anyone know more about litigation than Trump?" Trump said of himself. "Okay? I know a lot. I'm like a PhD in litigation."
Trump compared Cruz running for president with this lingering question about Democrat Hillary Clinton running despite lingering questions about her use of a private email account during her time as secretary of state. Later Trump also compared the situation to a fighter being disqualified for not meeting the weight class.
"So she's got the cloud hanging over her head, but Ted Cruz has a real cloud hanging over his head," Trump said. "So the question is: Is Ted Cruz, is he a natural-born citizen?"
The crowd again shouted, "No!"
"I just heard this: He was a citizen of Canada for a long time," Trump said, referring to Cruz having citizenship in the United States and Canada until recently. "He was a citizen of the United States, I believe, and Canada simultaneously. How do you, how -- what's going on here? So, he's got to straighten these things out."
Trump questioned why Cruz didn't revoke his Canadian citizenship years ago, especially when he became a U.S. senator.
"Does he get a pass from that?" Trump asked. The crowd again answered, "No!"
There have been other presidential candidates who were not born in the traditional United States, but Trump says their cases are different. An example he gave: Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the 2008 Republican nominee, was born to two U.S. (snip)
Thus there is no document that agrees with your ideas.
By that logic you can take the Canadian out of Canada but you can’t make the Canadian a natural born citizen.
Can’t speak for CW—and I’ll do her the courtesy of pinging her, since you lack the manners-—but I have zero use for lying progressive scum like Trump.
You can slobber over him all you want.
.
Crystallized ignorance!
And you are not qualified to be a freeper.
Now get off the forum you big dummy.
Obama has a birth certificate from Hawaii at least. Cruz doesn’t even have that going for him. but he’s a NBC. Sure he is.
Wrong, and the "Law of Nations" is not the law of the United States either.
Wow you are just the model of good grace and impeccable manners.
Vattel mentions ONE parent, and in a foreign country too.
Ted Cruz was born a Citizen of the United States.
If you are a citizen by virtue of birth, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.
You are either a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen.
Now which one is Ted Cruz?
The paper on which those words are printed, an opinion from the Supreme Court, delivered by the Chief Justice, is a document.
Meaning: You didn't even look.
and Vattel was specifically referenced in that decision.
I’m not clear on why Ted had to denounce his Canadian citizenship or if he can ever get it back?
Oh!
So you want murdering ISIS or Soddie anchor babies to come back here as adults and run for president.
That is not true. Ted Cruz was a citizen of Canada by virtue of his birth and by virtue of his father’s acquired nationality. His birther certificate reflects that reality. The constitution clearly differentiates between a citizen and a NBC in article II, section 1 paragraph 5. vattel provides the necessary clarification of what the framers meant by NBC. The SCOTUS has referenced Vattel’s the Law of Nations more than once and even cited Vattel in the Venus Merchantman decision of 1814 after referencing the paragraphs regarding NBC taken from Chapter X1X.
Thanks for posting that link. It suggests to me that CfG is not promoting amnesty but does have other objectives it wants to focus on. That’s fine with me. Sun Tsu. Pick your battles wisely.
BTW, I noticed that one of the other organizations staying active in that area is the Heritage Action group, and they gave Ted a near perfect score, better than Trump or any of the other Republicans:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/politics/heritage-action-republicans-ted-cruz-donald-trump/
So it’s good to find out such a strongly anti-amnesty group is so fond of Ted. Thanks.
Peace,
SR
He didn’t denounce his Canadian Citizenship, he renounced it.
Is the child of an illegal alien who is born in Kentucky more qualified than Ted Cruz to be President?
This is all just a bunch of Bull crap. No judge is going to undo the election if Ted Cruz is elected.
This is all just a bunch of esoteric nonsense. Congress has the power to determine birthright citizenship and Ted Cruz is a Citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth.
If he had to apply for citizenship then he would not be eligible. He didn’t. His Citizenship is a birthright.
BUT the SCOTUS has never cited deVattel to define/interpret “Natural Born Citizen” as it is set out as a Constitutional requirement to serve as POTUS. They just haven’t. But that they had!
To the extent that SCOTUS has referred to deVattel, I am told by attorneys who have deeply researched and brief the issue, it is not controlling authority on this question. Nonetheless, they say, it’s far stronger than arguments in the other direction.
I’m advised that more compelling is Justice Story’s comment in Shanks v duPont, that the Founders looked to British Common Law for “mere municipal law,” except that in regard to citizenship they looked to the Law of Nations. Unlike Marshall quoting deVattel in a concurring opinion (The Venus), Story was writing an opinion for a unanimous court.
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.