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

The Ridgewood Blog ^ | August 27, 2013 | PJBlogger

[DiogenesLamp]

A newborn has no concept of loyalty. That is why a wet nurse can function as a parental figure. A breast is a breast and milk is milk.

And citizenship is citizenship.

To quote Hillary, "What difference does it make?" Canadian is just as good as American.

[wintertime]

Gee! The kids in Vietnam fathered American soldiers have an American parent.

Given Levin's reasoning they could be president after living in the U.S. the required number of years.

I will likely lose this argument but Natural Born Citizen means no allegiance to another country. That means American parentS, born in this country, and no other country's citizenship, or eligibility for of other country's citizenship due to the parent's status, any kind.

[Tau Food]

That you are resorting to common sense is a good sign, because common sense is a kissing cousin of Natural Law.

I like that. Good for you! ;-)

[wintertime]

The should read:

Vietnam kids fathered **by** American soldiers.

( I wish they would get an edit feature for Free Republic posts.)

[DiogenesLamp]

He owes nothing to Canada that cannot be repaid with an upraised middle finger. And, being a brilliant legal scholar, he knows it, even if ignoramuses posting do not.

But there is the problem with your theory. We are not ignoramuses. We likely know more about this topic than do most constitutional scholars and the evidence we have uncovered keeps contradicting the arguments that our "betters" make.

Most of these modern day people keep citing this or that court, all of which simply bow to a precedent they insist on interpreting in an overly broad manner. Looking at what the founders and the Delegates wrote, you come away with a very different understanding that that derived from Wong Kim Ark.

[DiogenesLamp]

The 1790 act shows what the Founders thought "natural born". meant

If it did, then they wouldn't have used the words "Shall be Considered AS", they would have said "Are."

"Shall be considered as" means "similar" it does not mean "same."

[sauropod]

Well Gee. The text of the Constitution I found on line says:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

I read this as the President must be natural born OR a Citizen of the U.S. Not *AND*. I also don't see anywhere where it says that the person who is a Citizen at time of adoption of the Constitution can't also be a Citizen 200 years later and therefore eligible.

Therefore "natural born" is not exclusive of being a Citizen, which Ted Cruz certainly is. Therefore Ted Cruz is eligible. NOT an issue.

That is all.

[Tau Food]

I haven't read discussions of why the framers chose to refine ‘Treason’.

I got a chuckle out of that.

Now, why would a bunch of very loyal, patriotic subjects have developed an interest in a narrow, precise definition for treason?

Why was Clinton interested in a narrow, precise definition of sex? ;-)

[Nero Germanicus]

In the modern world, nearly two millennia after the fall of the Roman Empire, mothers can instill love of country as readily as fathers.
No judge or member of Congress is going to try to equate Ted Cruz’ first 4 years of life in Canada against his 38 years of life in the U.S. with a mother from Delaware.
And as we know from the cesspool of daytime talk television’s obsession with paternity tests, the persons named as fathers are sometimes NOT the true father; Barack Obama Senior, Frank Marshall Davis or Malcolm X anybody? Stanley Ann Dunham was born in Wichita, Kansas, Barack Obama Senior born in Kogelo, Kenya, Frank Marshall Davis was born in Arkansas City, Kansas and Malcolm (ne’e) Little born was in Omaha, Nebraska.

In today’s brave new world, we also have tens of thousands of children (estimates are between 20,000 and 60,000 per year) conceived by artificial insemination where the identity of the male sperm donor is unknown.

[DiogenesLamp]

So the guy gets in my face, and he starts pointing and pointing, and I looked at him and I pointed back, and I cursed, unfortunately, but the, because, uh you know, he was…he was a nutjob.

That's about the summary of dealing with birthers. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Jeff, you inspire cursing because of your lying. You also have a bad habit of constantly repeating your lying.

Cursing at you is the only rational response.

[nesnah]

They placed that part in there so that we wouldn’t have to wait 35 years for someone to become eligible. Man.....

[Servant of the Cross]

Who would make this final ruling ...

Of course, that will be debated too. Legislature or Courts? We can be certain that it WON'T be by amateur Constitutional 'scholars' opining on it here. IMHO, SCOTUS will make it official that the current acting interpretation in the 'modern political environment' of "natural born citizen" = "born citizen" (i.e. child of an American citizen, including a mother named Eleanor).

would you accept the decision like it or not ???

Yes, I would. What will be will be.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

I notice you never offer anything of substance in your posts. Are you a Sarah Palin supporter like myself?

[humblegunner]

I notice you never offer anything of substance in your posts.

Read all 12 years worth, have you?

Are you a Sarah Palin supporter like myself?

Support her for what? Like sending her money?

[noinfringers2]

I think the Founders believed that expressed allegiance to the USA was a matter of both father and mother having that dedication. A child into adulthood can have characteristics tuned to either father or mother. To choose one or the other parent as determinant was quashed by acknowledging that allegiance to the USA was required of both parents and this was to be such at birth of the child for the child to be ‘natural born’. The Constitution recognizes explicitly ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

“There are plenty of people who have used reason and logic against the anti-Cruz birthers here.”

I’m rejecting your assertion that anyone questioning Cruz’s eligibility is anti-Cruz. We’re not anti-Cruz, we’re anti-destruction of the Constitution.

Refuting some of your points from post #105 that you keep asking someone to do:

“1. There is no law, no precedent, case, no definition of this issue as put forth by the birthers anywhere in any court case or law. None. Zilch, zero, nada.”
To name 3, refer to
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

“2. Cruz was given a US birth certificate immediately, he was not naturalized, his parents did not have to go through any unusual manner to get his citizenship, it was automatic”

Cruz’s parents had to file for a Canadian birth certificate that they then had to take to the American Embassy (or consulate) to register the birth. 2-steps. Natural born citizens only have 1 step - the birth certificate. (Do you know for a fact they didn’t do the same thing in the Cuban Embassy to give him Cuban citizenship?) If Congress hadn’t passed a law, Cruz wouldn’t even be a citizen. If he was a “natural born” citizen - if both his parents were US citizens and he was born in the US - he wouldn’t need a law to be a citizen.

“3. The original intent of the issue was not to have a President with divided loyalties. Cruz has no divided loyalties toward the US founding, most of his opponents do.”

Regardless whether you want to believe it or not, Cruz has at least 3 loyalties in law - Canada, Cuba and US. I’m interested to know how you know what’s in his head or his heart. If you’re just using what he says, you must not ever have been lied to before by a Politician. I’m not saying he is or he isn’t, I’m saying you don’t know.

“4. There is a big divide in thought on the matter, some good arguments from both sides in the conservative arena, but there is no clear winner, because there is no clear court precedent. Why take someone out as good as Cruz over a difference of opinion on this niggling point?”

It’s not a niggling point, it’s a constitutional qualification. No one is trying to take Cruz “out”. We want this issue resolved because how it’s resolved will reflect back on Obama. Obama is EXACTLY what the Founders were trying to avoid.

“5. Even if the birthers were right (debatable), for us to take out one of ours on a point that they ignored for two elections would be political suicide and make us the stupidest part of the stupid party.”

Who ignored what? Obama’s eligibility has been debated and a resolution sought through the court system since 2008. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. It can’t be right because he’s “our guy”.

[xzins]

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.

That is probably a bit of emotion gone overboard, but it is inconsequential. Current law accepts the citizenship of one parent, whether the father or the mother.

To be honest, though, descent through the mother is actually easier to prove. Questions about the real mother are a lot easier to answer than questions about the real father.

Maternity tests are far less common than paternity tests.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

And this is exactly my position. I wish to add that I want the technicality strictly enforced in the case of Obama, and I want it ignored in the case of Cruz.

Obama is foreign in Spirit, and the intent of the SPIRIT of the law was to keep out such foreign spirits as Obama.

Ted Cruz does not violate the spirit of the law.

[DiogenesLamp]

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).

The Modern courts are not bound by law. Are we debating what courts will do, or are we debating what is actually correct?

We conservatives generally have no faith in Courts. We've been lied to so many times that the norm is to have very little respect for what the Judicial system has become.

Do you respect the court opinion of Roe v Wade?

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

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

Really? The term Birther was to link people who thought Obama was born outside the country to 911 Truthers. Morons. Idiots. Insane. ...

We know exactly what people who use the term “Birther” are trying to do, and you’re using it as a pejorative to minimize the impact of what those who disagree with you say.

“Most people that I know intuitively believe that someone who is born a citizen of the U.S. is a natural born citizen...”

So this is the new criteria for interpreting the Constitution?

“Maybe you could elaborate on your fears. Why do you feel that Cruz is less eligible than Obama?”
Ineligible is ineligible. Is there a lesser or greater degree of ineligibility that works for you? However, if ultimately judged that natural born citizen requires you to be born on US soil, 0bama (if you believe his story and the “documents” he’s presented) would be eligible (heaven forbid) and Cruz not.

“How might a Cruz candidacy be derailed by the fact that there are a few folks who adhere to these old European citizenship theories?”
So, what criteria are we using to interpret the Constitution today? Different than yesterday? Different than last year? Different than the original intent? What about the next Canadian-Cuban-American or Kenyan-American that runs for President? Will his motivies be pure?

“Are you afraid that some court might attempt to disqualify Cruz?”
What if the Supreme Court STOPS evading the issue after Cruz is elected?

“Specifically, what are you worried about?”
I’m worried that the Constitution means absolutely nothing anymore to anyone and it’s only a matter of time until the shooting starts. My first grandchild was born on July 4th and I fear for his future.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my fears. Can I get up off the couch now?