Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

The Ridgewood Blog ^ | August 27, 2013 | PJBlogger

[Tau Food]

What I’m talking about is the pejorative “birther”

Well, I've used the term birther, but not in a pejorative sense. It's just a descriptive term.

What I really want to know is why your side is so strongly pushing someone whose eligibility is so questionable.

Ted Cruz brings to the table some unique qualities. He's very intelligent, he's very articulate and he isn't intimidated by either the MSM or by any need to be loved by everyone. He's one of a kind and I don't think you'll find an adequate substitute for him.

Those birthers who claimed that Obama was born in Kenya or that his father was a British citizen or that it is impossible to identify his "real" parents promised that the revelations would injure Obama's candidacy. Well, Obama was twice elected and he appeared to be using the birther claims for his own advantage.

Most people that I know intuitively believe that someone who is born a citizen of the U.S. is a natural born citizen of the U.S. Most people have never heard of Grotius or Vattel. Most don't even speak French. Most would not be inclined to submit to the notion that we as Americans must look to foreign books written before our country was even formed for guidance as to whom we may or may not select to be our presidents.

Maybe you could elaborate on your fears. Why do you feel that Cruz is less eligible than Obama? How might a Cruz candidacy be derailed by the fact that there are a few folks who adhere to these old European citizenship theories? Are you afraid that some court might attempt to disqualify Cruz? Specifically, what are you worried about?

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

As usual, when you get called, you resort to belittling and marginalizing. If you forgot what I wrote, I’ll forgive you since it was last night and we’ve all had a lot to think about since then.

But, just a reminder, the lesser of two evils is trying to decide to violate my oath to obey the Constitution, or vote to keep a democrat out of office. That would apply to Cruz (eligible?) as it did to Romney (senor plastic), Bush (can’t put 3 words together to make sense, the patriot act, etc.), McCain (sheesh), Dole, Bush Sr., Ford and Nixon, and anyone else I forgot.)

I thank you for your advice to not vote again. But, since it’s given by someone who believes the following, I’ll pass on it:

Born to American father and foreign national mother in a foreign country = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)

Born to American father and foreign national mother in a foreign country on US Military base = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)

Born to American father and foreign national mother in a foreign country in a US Embassy or consulate = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)(this may actually be correct, since Embassys and consulates are considered American territory)

Born to American mother and foreign national father in a foreign country = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)

Born to American mother and foreign national father in a foreign country on Military base = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)

Born to American mother and foreign national father in a foreign country in a US Embassy or consulate = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)

Born to American father and American mother in a foreign country = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)

Born to American father and American mother in a foreign country on Military base = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)

Born to American father and American mother in a foreign country in a US Embassy or consulate = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)

Born to resident alien foreign national father and American mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen)

Born to resident alien foreign national mother and American father in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of mother’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen)

Born to resident alien foreign national father and resident alien foreign national mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s and mother’s country(ies) (as they may be from different foreign countries) (i.e. not a foreign citizen, dual citizen or triple citizen)

Born to illegal alien foreign national father and American mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen)

Born to illegal alien foreign national mother and American father in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of mother’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen)

Born to illegal alien foreign national father and illegal alien foreign national mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s and mother’s country(ies) (as they may be from different foreign countries) (i.e. not a foreign citizen (not subject to American jurisdiction) or dual citizen or triple citizen)

Natural born citizen = born citizen = naturalized citizen = dual citizen = triple citizen?

Or, to put it in the parlance the Founders would understand, their “obvious” intent would have been that:

Born to American father and British mother in Britain = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute or natural born subject)

Born to American father and British mother in Britain on US Military base (if there was such a thing) = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute or natural born subject)

Born to American father and British mother in Britain in a US Embassy or consulate = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute or natural born subject)

Born to American mother and British father in Britain = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute or natural born subject)

Born to American mother and British father in Britain on Military base (if there was such a thing) = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute or natural born subject)

Born to civilian American mother and British father in Britain in a US Embassy or consulate = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute or a natural born subject)

Born to American father and American mother in Britain = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute, or natural born subject)

Born to American father and American mother in Britain on Military base = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute or natural born subject)

Born to civilian American father and American mother in Britain in a US Embassy or consulate = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute or natural born subject)

Born to resident alien British father and American mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen or natural born subject)

Born to resident alien British mother and American father in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of mother’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen or natural born subject)

Born to resident alien British father and resident alien British mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s and mother’s country(ies) (as they may be from different foreign countries - England, Scotland, Wales, etc.) (i.e., not a foreign citizen, dual citizen or triple citizen or natural born subject)

Born to illegal alien British father and American mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen or natural born subject)

Born to illegal alien British mother and American father in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of mother’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen or natural born subject)

Born to illegal alien British father and illegal alien British mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s and mother’s country(ies) (as they may be from different foreign countries - England, Scotland, Wales, etc.) (i.e., not a foreign citizen (not subject to American jurisdiction) or dual citizen or triple citizen or natural born subject)

Natural born citizen = born citizen = naturalized citizen = dual citizen = triple citizen = natural born subject?

[DiogenesLamp]

You should read and absorb this. It's really quite simple.

Since you are quoting Jeff, you should have used the word "simpleton." It's much more accurate.

[Sloth]

Cruz was born a dual citizen of the US and Canada. According to the original intent of the framers, he is disqualified.

By that standard, any hostile nation (Cuba, North Korea) could legally grant citizenship to all Americans, making all of us ineligible. It's absurd. Dual citizenship has no bearing on natural born citizenship.

[Lakeshark]

It seems you don't deal with cognitive dissonance very well.........

Good day to you.

[humblegunner]

I am a staunch Conservative.

If you have to SAY you are, you probably ain't.

[sometime lurker]

Your posts are an insult to every patriot here. All of those that seek to place men under government are evil. Government is to be our servant, not our master. You obviously need a heavy hand above you, but functional men do not.

You seem to have some trouble understanding my posts, as well as understanding Common Law. You have decided noted jurists from Justice Scalia to those early in our history are "evil" without giving any reason why. It would seem you think anyone who has a different interpretation of NBC is "evil" in your mind and not a patriot. Do you include James Madison in that?

Step back, look at the evidence of what the Founders, Framers, and early jurists and legal historians meant by NBC. If you choose not to think, not to understand what our early history says, who is the better patriot?

While debate is fine if you actually have points to make or information to bring; if all you can do is spew insults, don't bother posting.

[sometime lurker]

Agree completely. NBC to the Framers was very clear, they well knew what natural born subject meant, and transferred it, as several early legal writers (St George Tucker) and jurists pointed out.

Those who try to make it something else are reading something into the Constitution that was never there. As you say, if they want it in the Constitution, they will have to amend it.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

It seems you don’t deal with cognitive dissonance very well.

And good day to you, too.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The crux of the issue — the requirement for the President to be a natural-born citizen — is that he (or she) have no allegiance to any other country. Neither parent being at the time of birth a citizen of another country, not born in another country, not self-identifying as a foreign student to slip into an ivy-league school, and also not accepting any honorary or dual citizenship of another country.

As much as I appreciate and respect Ted Cruz, I do not believe he meets the requirement. However, I will vote for him if the alternative is any Democrat.... for the good of the country.

Since I agree with that latter sentiment, I have to have a slightly different view of the bolded part of the first one.

The Framers’ desire was that only people (men, at the time) whose allegiance was to the Constititution and the people of the United States should ever be president. The Natural Born Citizen requirement is merely the best proxy they could come up with for that. Thus, if Obama, with his contempt for people who wouldn’t look like his imaginary son and his arbitrary refusal to “see that the law be faithfully enforced," meets the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement, that is a mere technicality. And if a Ted Cruze, with his patent devotion to the Constitution, does not meet the NBC criterion, that is also a technicality. Which can be brushed aside as easily as Obama brushes aside the provisions of his own signature law. Or as easily as someone moves his voting registration from Texas back to his native state of Wyoming in order to qualify to run as VP on the same ticket as the governor of Texas.

But in a nation of 300 million people there really ought to be someone who meets the strictest NBC test and can be relied on to be sincere when pledging to defend the Constitution. And of course there is - Clarence Thomas. But we can’t spare the man, where he is. But Sarah Palin passes with flying colors . . .

[Servant of the Cross]

Since you are referring to Jeff, you should provide a courtesy 'ping' to him.

Okay then, I'll now quote from a similar Constitutional analysis from a 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office ...

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

Even poluttico begrudgingly admits ...None of these situations have ever stopped a candidate from running, and it’s unlikely that Cruz would be the first.

[Tau Food]

Whoa! You have really got yourself tangled up in this stuff. Please understand that you are choosing to adopt the positions that you are adopting. None of this is compelled.

For example, there is nothing that compels you to view "dual citizenship" as relevant to a NBC status. You are not compelled to believe that an American citizen's eligibility to be president should depend on whether some foreign government chooses or doesn't choose to view the candidate as one of its citizens as well. Americans are not bound to consider the rules of some other government when choosing our presidents. Why do you think foreign governments should be permitted to manipulate our presidential selection by their decisions to view or not view our candidates as citizens of their countries? We have no control over how other countries choose to view our citizens.

Second, there is nothing that compels you to allow some eighteenth century Swiss philosopher to deter you from interpreting "natural born citizen" in the way most people living now and most people living at the time of our founding would have interpreted it. "Citizen at birth" is a common-sense construction for the the term "natural born citizen" - a construction that is much more natural for ordinary citizens. There is nothing that compels us to allow Vattel to define for us the pool of our eligible presidential candidates.

The obvious purpose of the NBC clause (coupled with the residency requirement) is to ensure that a president is selected from a pool of candidates who all have strong political connections to the United States by heritage and by personal experience (residence). Coupled with the residence requirement, a requirement that a candidate be a "citizen by birth" is more than adequate to protect us from strangers. The obvious purpose of the provision is to prevent the election of Prince Charles. It is not to disqualify the candidacy of an American like Ted Cruz.

You are of course free to choose what you wish to believe, but there is nothing about any of this that compels the choices you are making.

[Tennessee Nana]

Would you get your lazy butt up the thread and read what has gone on before ???

[DiogenesLamp]

Since you are referring to Jeff, you should provide a courtesy 'ping' to him.

Jeff deserves no courtesy. He is a habitual and determined liar, and I have long since lost any respect for him.

Okay then, I'll now quote from a similar Constitutional analysis from a 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office ...

Stop. Just Stop. I do not give a FLYING FIG for anything written in the modern political environment. You cannot garner a correct understanding by reading opinions from hundreds of years after the fact.

You want to quote something to me? Make it late 18th or early 19th century. Here is an example of what I mean.

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you really, truly believe that a newborn infant has “loyalties?”

No. This is why having a Loyal FATHER is an absolute necessity. The child will absorb the Father's loyalty, and this is how it was always intended to operate outside of lawyers games.

[Servant of the Cross]

Stop. Just Stop. I do not give a FLYING FIG for anything written in the modern political environment.

Au contraire. First, Senator Cruz is not running for POTUS right now. IF he does, I think it likely that, unlike the phony poseur currently staining the office, he would seek a Constitutional ruling regarding his qualification for the office of the POTUS which he like our Founders holds sacred (and he should have "standing").

If this happens, the ONLY thing that will matter is the interpretation on the matter by the "modern political environment" (which IMHO opinion is already quite clearly stated in practice - Exhibit I: the current occupier-in-chief).

[DiogenesLamp]

Nero Germanicus wrote:
Do you really, truly believe that a newborn infant has “loyalties?”

To which Tau Food responded:
That's a good, common sense question, isn't it?

It is absolutely a good common sense question and the best answer to it is the one I gave. A Child is expected to acquire it's love of country from it's Father. The word "Patriotism" derives from the Latin word for Father. "Pater."

The word literally means "love of my Father's Country."

That you are resorting to common sense is a good sign, because common sense is a kissing cousin of Natural Law. A Child cannot gain a love for a different country than that which his father loves, and so the father's allegiance is the determining factor in that of the child.

Partus Sequitur Patrem.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yep, I couldn’t have said it better. It seems to me that an American citizen parent can transmit a sense of patriotism, allegiance and love of country to a child who is capable of grasping those concepts, from anywhere on the planet.

Don't you mean MATRIotism? PATRIotism is the domain of the Father.

Washington, Jefferson and Madison had no trouble accepting honorary French citizenship to show solidarity with the French Revolution.

Jefferson didn't get Honorary citizenship. Aren't you keeping up?

Washington and Madison had no problem with it because it was honorific, not actual.

[Tennessee Nana]

Senator Cruz is not running for POTUS right now. IF he does, I think it likely that, unlike the phony poseur currently staining the office, he would seek a Constitutional ruling regarding his qualification for the office of the POTUS which he like our Founders holds sacred (and he should have “standing”).
__________________________________________________________

Who would make this final ruling and would you accept the decision like it or not ???