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 ...
Article II section 1.
Article II Section 1 provides that electors vote. There is no authority to determine who is and who is not eligible for the Presidency.
I wouldn’t sue at this point if I was Trump because it will probably be moot in a few weeks. And it’s already cast enough doubt to stop Cruz’ momentum. In any case it’s Cruz’ issue to deal with. If Cruz does start winning he will have to cross that bridge at some point, Trump or no Trump.
Then how did they pick the president?
Was there a qualification ruling by the Supreme Court before they voted? Was Washington qualified by the Supreme Court before taking office? After all, he did serve as an officer in the British Army.
| Wonderful background. Thank you for adding real expertise on this subject. Despite the seriousness of this, it's also fascinating to learn about. For 9 years I was U.S. Navy -- ship driver type: San Diego, Hawaii, and Japan. Stationed in Japan in the early 80's. They said: better bring home a souvenir, so I brought home a wife! And praise the Lord, she's been kind enough to put up with me for over 30 years. So my wife has a green card and is studying to get her citizenship now because there are certain advantages if I should die before her. Cheers. |
I'm not naive enough to believe my vote is allowed to matter between fraud and corruption. Like hanging chads, the recourse for an obvious corrupt political play - a last-minute Cruz DQ from say, a Ninth Circus judge - is to go to the streets. Good. Let it all be revealed and the consequences come. Truth will out, it must.
> Was Washington qualified by the Supreme Court before taking office?
Whoa whoa whoa. I am not saying that the Supreme Court possesses authority, as part of the process of election, to qualify a person for office. I am saying that questions regarding eligibility are within the exclusive authority of the Judiciary when a case is brought. Questions regarding eligibility are not resolved by Congress or by electors.
Nothing tortured about it. He cited the relevant law. It’s just that these people don’t like his conclusions.
All of them put together don’t know as much about the Constitution as Mark Levin does on a day when his memory is off.
I love the way that the Trumpkins read out of the conservative movement anyone who doesn’t support every utterance of their off-the-cuff candidate.
Mark Levin isn’t a propaganda tool for anyone.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
I am not willing to punt this ball to a bunch of unelected ass clowns in black robes. I would think that they would most likely rule Ted Cruz eligible, but then I don't think that is their call.
It's your call. It's my call. If you don't think he is Constitutionally eligible, then don't vote for him. If the majority of the electorate takes that position, then he won't be elected.
I can’t argue with that.
I will say that if a candidate that I voted for was DQ’d at the last minute in such a way that left me no recourse, I would be ****in’ mad. I apologize for my language, but I mean it.
This needs to be worked out or otherwise clarified for this election and all elections to come.
There is no point at all in leaving this so obscure and nebulous.
That mentality is how the ineligible Obama seized power.
Is determining a person’s age a political question, or is it a question of fact?
Is determining a person’s residency a political question, or is it a question of fact?
Of course, these are questions of fact.
Yet determining who is a natural born citizen is somehow a political question?
The Constitutional standard may not be expanded or diminished by Congressional act. (Can’t you just hear Congress, “well he is popular, so what if he 34 years old, he’ll be 35 in nine months”)
Eligibility is not a political question, it is a question of fact and law. The eligibility of a given person is determined by the Judiciary.
There is no precedent for the judiciary to declare a candidate for president to be ineligible on the grounds that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. Because there is no direct election of president and the first vote for anyone occurs at the electoral college, the case would not be ripe until that person is actually elected.
An ineligible person shall not be President. If it is determined that a person holding office is ineligible that person is removed, a vacancy is created, and the usual succession process begins.
There is no precedent because unprecedented acts are being committed. (Have been committed)
“nah birthers know nothing so they have to make up what words mean. Birthers ignore the law when it contradicts their nutty opionions”
You are describing your own behavior, as your own comments above demonstrate with their ad hominem attack.
of course nutter birthers deserve ad hominem attacks since they ignore the law cause it conflicts with their nutty reality
“of course nutter birthers deserve ad hominem attacks since they ignore the law cause it conflicts with their nutty reality”
If you for one moment entertain the thought the Founding Fathers had in mind to allow a former Canadian citizen to serve as the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army, you are demented enough to be committed to the ward for the mentally ill.
Which Founding Father was born in America...all or some. And how many US presidents were born in America all...not.
Go read up on US immigration law
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.