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 ...
Why don’t you name some? I don’t believe you can. No amount of unsupported assertions will substantiate your contention. You can’t name any actual authority to support what you say.
I don’t think trump will file a law suit either.
I don’t think that he or anyone else can establish standing prior to Cruz being elected.
But what you have told me is your opinion. Everyone has an opinion on this, but the only opinion that actually matters is the potential opinion of any court that may take up the issue.
Had Ben Franklin married a French woman and children resulted from the marriage... That child would have been denied citizenship?
That seems absurd on its face.
ML/NJ
I think you might be right about the CRBA.
.
You’re really quite a basket case!
Its all been posted here in the last few days, how do you miss them?
.
I have actually had to pay intention to what Lawrence Tribe says in briefing on constitutional questions, unlike those, such as yourself, who have never actually had to seriously brief these issues or any constitutional questions. I found that Lawrence Tribe could be politically swayed but he is a serious constitutional professor and scholar and a highly regarded one. He would not have received tenure at Harvard law and taught there for so many years if he were the equivalent of Michael Moore. You are not speaking from any actual knowledge.
Or, it could be much simpler than a tin foil hat conspiracy theory about Levin’s motives. Maybe, being the Constitutional scholar you admit he is, he simply sees no violation of constitutional eligibility by either Obama or Cruz.
Because they are not there. If they had been you would be able to name them but you cannot because they only exist in your imagination.
“It has nothing to do with what Donald J. Trump says today. All he did” was to use this non issue as a tactic... which he has tenaciously refused to let go of, and in fact has escalated to the point of INSANITY.
THAT is THE DEAL
Seems to me a lot of people are clouding the waters of what used to be a pretty widely understood standard.
I went to pretty good schools during my primary education years. Mostly Army schools for the dependents of US servicemen. They were on par with the parochial schools of my day.
As I recall, we studied very little of the Constitution itself, mostly memorizing the preamble, and digging into the first ten Amendments. The rest, they sort of left for college, I guess.
But to your point, I can specifically remember learning that a president was required to be born in the US to two citizen parents. It was just part of the package of general things we learned about the nation's founding.
It astounds me that the requirements for NBC have become muddied so badly, just since I was a kid.
Not in a million frickin years.
sounds like what we were all taught in school: both parents are citizens, and born in the country....
| Very good point! Cruz needs to get his CRBA document and passport records together. If we can get our prior year tax records from the IRS, Cruz should be able to retrieve all his past U.S. citizen records. And what about Schumer, Hillary and Tribe? People are saying that Democrats would never sue? How can that be true? The Democrats will bend every law on the books to get what they want. Not sure why they would let pass this issue of eligibility to be President. Heck, Hillary is in some much trouble, she's begging to find an edge, anything to disqualify her GOP opponent. |
why hasn’t Donald JJ Trump gone after....Marco Rubio’s eligibility as some other have?
because he doesn’t represent a threat to Donald JJ Trumps ascendency... thats why
oh well
It’s not just Levin then. It was the entire conservative talk radio, pundits, Republicans and even most FReepers who didn’t fight Obama’s eligibility hard enough.
.
>> “Is there some kind of non-naturally born citizenship I do not know about?” <<
.
The trumpets are in total fear of his coming collapse. Go easy on them.
Their heads are about to explode trying to insert another kind of citizenship for Ted.
.
Since Rubio is not likely to be the nominee, just as Jindal was not likely to be the nominee. Therefore, no problem was or is likely to arise because of their lack of eligibility. The great fraud presently occupying the Oval Office illustrates the wisdom of the constitutional requirement. This country would be better off today had he been sued by someone with standing and not been given a free pass because he is half-black.
l. Child of citizen mother and citizen father, born in the United States. (natural born citizen)
2. Child of citizen mother and alien father, born in the United States. (Obama's case)
3. Child of alien mother and citizen father, born in the United States.
4. Child of citizen mother and citizen father, born outside the United States. (McCain's case)
5. Child of citizen mother and alien father, born outside the United States. (Cruz' case)
6. Child of alien mother and citizen father, born outside the United States. (discussed in the proviso of the Naturalization act of 1790)
7. Child of alien mother and alien father, born in the United States. (Anchor baby, questionable unless one supports birthright citizenship) (Jindal's and Rubio's case)
8. Child of alien mother and alien father, born outside the United States. (not a citizen until naturalized)
9. Child of unknown origin. (naturalized citizen)
The dichotomy argument is too narrow to have a full robust discussion of the matter. It needs to be expanded to encompass all eight scenarios within the context of the Preamble's intent to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
In other words, which of the above nine babies would you want to be President someday?
Levin is apparently in one or both of two camps: 1) Any child of an American is a natural born citizen, and 2) no court will take up a "political" issue so it's a waste of time. Listening to him, my impression is that he really doesn't care about it unless you were foreign born to two non-citizens. He seems to take the negative logic approach: define what is clearly NOT a natural born citizen (like Arnold Schwarzenegger), and everyone else is.
-PJ
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.