Trump's claim that Dems would challenge Cruz's eligibility on firm ground

The Washington Examiner ^ | 1/15/2016 | SEAN HIGGINS

[BlackFemaleArmyColonel]

Donald Trump defended his argument that his Republican presidential rival Sen. Ted Cruz should not be the GOP nominee because he was not born inside the U.S. by arguing that Democrats would mount a legal challenge to his eligibility for office.

"I am not bringing a suit, but the Democrats are going to be filing a lawsuit," Trump warned during Thursday's night's debate on Fox Business.

The Texas senator laughed off the argument, saying that there was no legal question that he was eligible. Noting that he was a constitutional lawyer who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, he said he was "not taking legal advice from Donald Trump."

However, Trump's claim that Democrats would mount a challenge regarding Cruz's eligibility is plausible. At least one, Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., has already said he would do exactly that. Other Democrats and liberal thought leaders appear to be warming to the idea.

"Technically, he's not even an American... The Constitution says natural-born Americans, so now we're counting Canadians as natural-born Americans? How does that work?" Grayson told radio host Alan Colmes in November. "I'm waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he's unqualified for the job because he's ineligible."

[GeaugaRepublican]

Apparently, the Democrats are still pissed about Bush v. Gore and feel that this is payback time if Cruz gets the nod..... interesting how mad they still are about that.

If Cruz comes from way behind and ends of getting the nomination, maybe Trump should take it?

[Daniel Ramsey]

Watching a recording of the debate, Trump had Cruz squirming like a worm on a hook, seriously, you just watch Cruz and his eyes, he knows his birth issue is like a pair of concrete boots.

[sten]

this is the EXACT strategy i said the dems would use if TCruz were to get the nomination.

and yes, he would be found in ineligible. there’s far more evidence the founders intended for any future president to have only one citizenship at birth then any other weird fantasies concocted since 0bama came on the scene

[Bobalu]

If Cruz comes from way behind and gets the nomination then Trump SHOULD run as his VP so they would have his money to run on.

If we lose this election then unlimited immigration will doom us to Dem rule forever :-(

Sadly....I have my doubts that Trump would take the VP slot :-(

If he loves this country as much as he professes then he WOULD take the VP slot to ensure victory. (He WOULD be a hero, IMO)

I pray for a Trump/Cruz ticket, IMO this is unbeatable!

If Cruz gets the nom and Trump refuses the VP slot I will be very disappointed in him... :-(

I really like both Trump and Cruz.... these are my true feelings on the matter... Trump should run as VP if Cruz wins the nom... if not then we are screwed ...

[Jonty30]

This is one of the reason that I don’t think Cruz was planning to win this time around. I think his long-term plan was to put this issue upfront and now and, if the courts ruled in his favor, run in 2020 and win.

It’s a raising his profile this time around.

[Hugin]

I was really impressed with how much better Trump is at these debates, even though I think he won them all. That was a brilliant bit of jui-jitsu saying I might want to pick Cruz as VP, but how can I if I don’t know he’s eligible? Even if it’s a 5% chance, you can’t do it. And then he acknowledged that Cruz’ rising poll numbers were part of why he is talking about it. Why would he make an issue if Cruz had no chance at all? Really disarmed Cruz’ attack preemptively.

[P-Marlowe]

The courts are not going to rule either in his favor or not in his favor. The courts have no jurisdiction and the democrats have no standing.

[jwalsh07]

Cruz is not way behind. In head to head matchups Cruz beats Trump handily. You Trump supporters should say your prayers that Rubio, Carson and Bush stay in until the bitter end.

[jwalsh07]

Exactly right. It is non justiciable at the federal level. Now the states may be a different story. State Electors probably do have standing but if Cruz is on the ballot that argument is not going far.

[John Valentine]

there's far more evidence the founders intended for any future president to have only one citizenship at birth then any other weird fantasies concocted since 0bama came on the scene

Actually, there is NO evidence that the Founders intended any such thing, Nor could they have because we have NO control whatsoever over what other countries might demand or require in their own nationality laws.

There is no real world situation where dual citizenship could stand as the criteria.

If dual citizenship were the criteria for natural born status, then Donald Trump would also be ineligible - not directly because his mother was British (and she was naturalized before Trump was born anyway) but because HE was. And remains to this day, I assume, since I have never heard a word about him renouncing it.

Why is this important? Simply because it is irrelevant. Donald Trump is a natural born citizen in spite of his dual nationality. The Founders would never have countenanced our nation being marched around by some other country's laws.

[grania]

C’mon. Trump was granted a US birth certificate at the time of his birth. Cruz was granted a Canadian birth certificate at the time of his birth. Obama was granted a US birth certificate at the time of his birth.
Being eligible for the other one isn’t the same.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

[BobL]

“I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he’s ineligible.”

I’m surprised they’re going public with their strategy. So the lawsuit is filed and one of several things happens:

1) The courts quickly* rule in Cruz’s favor
2) The courts quickly* rule against Cruz
3) The courts slowly* rule in Cruz’s favor
4) The courts slowly* rule against Cruz
5) The courts leave the issue hanging through the election

(*quickly meaning soon after the convention, *slowly meaning just before the election)

The outcomes mean the following:

1) Non-issue
2) The RNC gets to choose our candidate - Jeb anyone?
3) Hangs over campaign, Dems claim Cruz is stealing the election through the courts as they did with Bush in 2000.
4) Cruz gets replaced at last minute by Jeb.
5) Drags Cruz to defeat, or at least hurts him

Trump HAS A POINT, nothing good comes from this...it needs to be SETTLED NOW, before the RNC gets to choose our candidate.

[BobL]

And also keep in mind that the courts now answer to DEMOCRATS, and would MUCH RATHER have Karl Rove putting Jeb on the ballot than to have to run against Cruz.

...but I still can’t see why the Dems spilled the beans, they had it set up PERFECTLY.

[Texas Fossil]

Obama was granted a US birth certificate at the time of his birth.

Really? Where is it? 2 clearly forged copies of a COLB? That the HI keeper of vital records would not certify are real? Oh, yes, she said he was in a letter without evidence. There is NO PROOF that Obama was born in HI. NONE. Was Obama a NBC? Depends. Was Frank Marshall Davis his father?

I don't believe he was born in HI at all. But you nor I will ever be able to prove that because of those who conjured his past.

[BobL]

“This is one of the reason that I don’t think Cruz was planning to win this time around. I think his long-term plan was to put this issue upfront and now and, if the courts ruled in his favor, run in 2020 and win.

It’s a raising his profile this time around.”

I tend to agree. It looks to me that Cruz isn’t fighting back as hard as he could. He’ll take VP, let the issue get settled when it doesn’t destroy the ticket, and then run in 2020 (or 2024) if the courts let him.

[BobL]

“The courts are not going to rule either in his favor or not in his favor. The courts have no jurisdiction and the democrats have no standing.”

You haven’t been following the Courts lately, have you. They certainly had no trouble allowing The Cadaver to be replaced in New Jersey, nor do they mind inserting themselves in abortion or gay marriage.

The Courts now do WHATEVER THEY DAMN PLEASE, or more precisely, whatever the Democrats want them to do.

[Rutabega]

I am sincerely confused with your post: HE was (Trump?) born as a British citizen? How?

My grandmother was English and naturalized as a US citizen before my mom was born, and so my mother had NO claim to British citizenship, as her mother had lost hers when she became a naturalized US citizen. The UK doesn’t grant dual citizenship in perpetuity, merely because you have British ancestors. When my grandmother and Trump’s mother became US citizens, they gave up their rights to British citizenship. Their children also lost that claim.

I like Trump over Cruz (but certainly don’t hate Cruz, and would happily vote for him), and I don’t necessarily think that the ability to claim dual citizenship makes someone ineligible to run fro president.

That said: The BC I’d be interested in seeing is Ted Cruz’s US birth certificate. When was that issued? Showing us his Canadian BC and his mom’s US BC is all fine and good, but the real question would be when did Cruz become a US citizen officially? The ability to get it when he was born (living in Canada or not) would have happened when he was born, I suspect, but when did his parents apply for it?

For the record, I have a son who is eligible for a dual citizenship, but we never applied for it. He has no legal claim to the second country unless I went through the process of getting the second country to acknowledge that he could get it if he made some effort. So, he isn’t a dual citizen.

Countries don’t waste their time chasing after babies who might have a claim to their citizenship, and send the papers in the mail to fill out, like credit card applications. If you want to get your citizenship from a country besides that which you were born in, you must make the effort to do it.

[Kartographer]

It is funny how much ‘standing ‘ there is in the Cruz eligibility and how little there was in Obama’s especially when Obama had so little to back his claim. Seems the powers that be are scared to death of a Cruz Presidency.

You cal also see this in the many who were the loudest about complaining about the embarrassing ‘Birther Crazies’ are now the Loudest proponents of Cruz’s ineligibility!