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 ...
The CRBA would show is that he was eligible for a Congressional grant of citizenship which conferred the status “citizen”. He is a naturalized citizen.
Perhaps he believes that producing the CRBA with fanfare and saying “See? I told you I was a citizen” will end his problem. It might be an entertaining PR stunt but it does nothing to change his ineligibility for the presidency.
Again. Are you serious?
You make a persuasive argument..and I must agree with everything you said. My point is, and I posted this the other day, that congress will not come to Ted’s rescue, his only hope is an interpretation from SCOTUS.
The underlying issue working against Cruz is his jinking and jiving. Why did he seal his US documents, and why not release them? His integrity is in question, not a good sign..
Yes. There is nothing that can change his ineligibility, period.
According to the Constitution Congress is the sole final legal arbiter as to the qualifications of the President Elect. They can vote to certify the election or they can vote not to certify it. If they determine that the president elect is not qualified, then the vice president elect takes on the office until such time as the president elect is determined to be qualified.
The Supreme Court is given no jurisdiction to intervene in this matter.
It is kinda funny how many people who have managed to read the Natural Born Citizen clause have failed to read or understand the meaning of the 20th amendment.
In this election the decision on whether or not Ted Cruz is "eligible" would and should be made by the electorate. Congress is not going to declare that Ted Cruz is not eligible if they ride into office on his coattails.
This is really a non-issue.
If you think Ted Cruz best represents your values and your ideas of Conservatism, then you should vote for him. If Congress dares to declare him ineligible after the electoral college, then President Palin can appoint him to the Supreme Court.
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.
Levin is a very smart, very educated man, and has a deep understanding of foundational American concepts (and their history), but on this one point, he's as out to sea as a typical lib.
It's maddening to hear someone I respect so much, give such short shrift to an issue that our recent history has proven beyond doubt, to be of the utmost importance.
You'd think the real-time object lesson of the Obama presidency would have shifted his thinking on the NBC issue, but apparently not. It's confounding as hell.
What does it say about natural born citizens?
Eldridge Cleaver was taken off the ballot in 1968 - he was running for president. Was that removal unconstitutional?
But what is the definition of natural born citizen?
Yes. He could be setting this all up. Cruz is nothing if not theatrical. He is a citizen at birth by statute but not a NBC.
The role of Congress is ministerial, they count electors’ votes. Only in a special circumstance may they exercise any other power (Amend. 12). In no circumstance do they possess authority to determine who is and who is not eligible for the Presidency. Electors vote. In no circumstance do they possess authority to determine who is and who is not eligible for the Presidency.
Eligibility is not a political issue, is a question of law & fact. The facts regarding an individual are discoverable. For example, a persons age and residency are discoverable facts, as is their citizenship status. Questions regarding eligibility are within the exclusive authority of the Judiciary. Conversely, if it were a political issue, the eligibility mandate of Article II would be nugatory.
That is just the point, he misled and deceived his audience with falsehoods and misrepresentations. Then he tried to intimidate and marginalize anyone who dared to challenge that misinformation. The question is why, when he does so when he is expert enough to be obligated to know better. It is peculiar to see him attempt to convince people a person/s who are naturalized U.S. citizens are somehow supposed to be converted into the antithesis of a naturalized citizen, the natural born citizen.
++++++++++++
nah birthers know nothing so they have to make up what words mean. Birthers ignore the law when it contradicts their nutty opionions
Probably.
The United States does not have direct election for president. A Candidate is merely running for the right to appoint electors to the electoral college. The first direct vote for president occurs when the electoral college meets.
There is no Constitutional requirement that someone running for a slate of electors must be "eligible". He can direct his electors to vote for whoever he chooses.
Further the determination of whether or not Eldridge Cleaver should be determined to be ineligible is one for the voters, the electoral college and congress to make.
It's the damnedest thing, isn't it? He reacted the same way during the Obama 'birther' controversy nearly eight years ago. Wouldn't talk about it, and wouldn't let his callers discuss it, either.
I suppose everyone's got a crazy cell somewhere in their brain. The NBC subject is Mark's.
PROVIDED she had five years of physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions after the age of fourteen. So even though she is an adult at 18, no citizenship is transferred.
Whatever you want it to be.
Whatever it is, Cruz clearly isn't one, and it is easy to prove. Anchor-baby Rubio isn't one but probably skates first because he's not going to get the nomination, and after that because SCOTUS screwed up the Wong Kim Ark case and it will take intense immigration pressure to revers - and our overlords think we aren't under enough immigration pressure, so they'll argue that anchor babies are entitled to NBC status.
I'll give it a shot as if the constitution was followed: person born a citizen of one of the several states of parents who do not owe an allegiance to any other country
...which of the above nine babies would you want to be President someday?
Obviously, I, and any other thinking, patriotic person would pick:
l. Child of citizen mother and citizen father, born in the United States. (natural born citizen)
When the founders drew up the Constitution the original intent was to give the electors the sole power and authority to judge the qualifications and eligibility of the person they would ultimately decide to be the president.
So when was this power taken away from them?
Section and Clause, please.
For what?
Give me the article and clause that defines a Natural Born Citizen?
> When the founders drew up the Constitution the original intent was to give the electors the sole power and authority to judge the qualifications and eligibility of the person they would ultimately decide to be the president.
What Section and Clause supports your claim?
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.