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)
Trump has flipped on just about every issue.
Flipping.
It’s what politicians do.
Cruz is, however, as some insist, a true conservative. If they all flip, I will go with the one who is a huuuuge success!
The case that's closest is Rogers v Bellei.
Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing 401 U.S. 830 rights, and affirmative of existing law," so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 688. Then follows a most significant sentence: But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
Which kicks things back to
“He’s a New Yorker, so he is saturated with liberal thinking.”
That’s the problem, it’s all he’s ever known on any number of issues.
Less than a year ago, last May, Trump blamed Pam Geller for the attempted mass murder here in Texas.
She insulted mad mo with her cartoon contest and insulting mad mo shouldn’t be allowed.
Trump gave us the standard left talking point because it came natural to him. Left wing thought is his first thought.
Just a few months after telling Pam Geller she shouldn’t say or do anything to insult muslims Trump is saying something and we were told by the left and muslims that too was insulting to muslims.
Trumps response, he didn’t insult muslims.
Funny how that works with leftist thinking, they should be allowed to say whatever they please but you shouldn’t.
You’re speech needs to be controlled, not theirs, and they should be the ones deciding what can and what can’t be said.
Trump did not have the slightest clue the slippery slope he was on by saying you shouldn’t say or do anything to insult muslims.
Want to see the slippery slope, look at Europe, people are prosecuted because some muslim claims they were insulted.
The case that's closest is Rogers v Bellei.
Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing 401 U.S. 830 rights, and affirmative of existing law," so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 688. Then follows a most significant sentence: But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
Which kicks things back to statute - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Trump wants to ban muslims from entering the country, and he had the guts to put it out there. That does not sound very left wing to me.
No he didn’t, that’s just blowing smoke out of your butt trying to cover for Trump.
Trump wants to control “right wing extremist hate speech”, as determined by him, against muslims.
That is as left as you can get.
It is the left that wanted to devalue American citizenship. Trump is defending the US constitution! Cruz is trying to trash our constitution!
Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA. The founders would not have even considered him a citizen of the USA. Up until 1934 citizenship was passed by the father to the child. The son of a Cuban born in Canada is not a natural born citizen of the USA. No way, no how.
No, Obama wants to control right wing extremist hate speech, so in the 0bama environment of aiding and abetting the muzzies, it is kind of stupid to taunt them with sticks.
LOL!
Trump's understanding of the US Constitution is almost zero. Trump has no respect for the Constitution, he just wants to be president and will say anything to get there.
Cruz is trying to trash our constitution!
You have just disqualified yourself as a person who should be listened to on this forum.
Cruz has an actual record of defending the Original Intent of the constitution. I doubt if Trump has even read the document.
Does anyone really believe the founders would consider an "anchor baby" with Chinese parents a natural born citizen that would be eligible to serve as POTUS? What about the children of all the trophy wives living in the middle east or Russia are those all natural born citizens and also eligible to serve as POTUS?
Some adult female gets infatuated with an ISIS fighter and goes to Syria, gets knocked up and has a child. That child lives with his dad until he is an adult then the child comes to the USA and that child is a NBC and can run for president?
OK I get it now.
That was the old Trump saying that but since he’s done a 180 on everything he said before, the new Trump can’t be held responsible for what the old Trump said and did.
You’ve changed the subject. The subject is not the baby of illegal immigrants. The subject is whether Ted Cruz is eligible. The answer is yes. Even Donald Trump is not as adamant about this issue as you and the other birthers on this Forum. Trump has stated the he doesn’t know whether Cruz is eligible. Which means that Trunp is ignorant on the subject. Like he is on most subjects.
Yes, she manages to make some posts in between trips to the shelter on the short bus for basket weaving lessons.
I have not changed the subject Ted Cruz says the citizen at birth means natural born citizen. I disagree and pointed out the consequences of adopting Cruzs’ definition of natural born citizen.
I agree. It is changing the subject. It doesn’t address the legality of Cruz’s candidacy.
However, it would make a great campaign ad. US Citizen baby momma of Isis warrior ==> Gives birth in US to baby ===> Baby eligible for presidency at 35 years old.
Ha, I’m like Trump, I have infinite energy and don’t need much sleep. Basically, I can run circles around you two old hags!
That's one parent.
Cruz had one parent with citizenship.
So in other words, Freepers have a presence on twitter.
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.