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."

[usconservative]

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.

That's quite a different opinion from those I've been reading in the legal community online. There seems to be a fairly even split as to whether or not Cruz's eligibility is a question.

The only opinion's I've read on this topic (while disagreeing on the eligibility question) all seem to agree that the Courts need to weigh in and resolve this one.

Wish they'd have done that in 2008 ...... but maybe that's just me I suppose.

[JEDI4S]

They will work it out. Ted did not realize the backlash on his N.Y. would be so severe though. A miscalculation that an “outsider” politician would make. A lifelong hack would not have.

Ted is not a hack.

I predict things will be smoothed over before S.C. Maybe Trump can have Ted and his family over for a weekend pow-wow in Florida and work things out.

Here's hoping. :-)

[BlackFemaleArmyColonel]

I do hope you are right because this is getting real ugly.

Did you see the New York Daily News cover?

[JEDI4S]

A lot of this is indeed media driven. We must not forget that. It's important to note the sheer hatred for both of these guys from the government media complex. Both are considered outsiders.

They both took the bait. Ted just took in more. And as ridiculous as it may seem...in the long run...this little spat may just strengthen their bond when they realize that they may have indeed...BEEN PLAYED!!!

Jedi.

[JEDI4S]

It’s the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS! They have always been left of Pravda during the height of the Cold War.

Though I must say...it is a pretty good shot from a bunch of lefties that wouldn’t been within a mile of any American with a gun!

I laughed...it was...”typical New York”.

If you have ever met a Yankee fan.....you get it.

[CJ Wolf]

You seem pretty well versed in this. I’ve seen the Canadian BC for Cruz, is this the one he shows to get a drivers license and into schools?

How does it prove his citizenship? Does just the fact it says his mom was born here do it?

[verga]

So basically Trump lied about his lawyers saying there was no problem back in September. Do we really need another Liar in Chief?

[nevermorelenore]

it was a Certification of Birth issued by the Department of State, Foreign Service of the United States of America with a raised seal.

[BlackFemaleArmyColonel]

I don’t know what Trumps lawyers discovered. But it still doesn’t answer the question of...will the Dems sue Cruz if he gets the nomination?

[John Valentine]

That’s the one I was talking about.

[John Valentine]

You seem pretty well versed in this.

Thanks.

I've seen the Canadian BC for Cruz, is this the one he shows to get a drivers license and into schools?

I've seen it too. I don't know what he used for a driver's license, school, US passport, etc. So I can't say. Maybe he has a form FS-240 (Consular Report of Birth Abroad). If so, perhaps he should release it.

How does it prove his citizenship?

Under US law, he acquired his citizenship at birth via his mother. She bequeathed her citizenship to him at birth.

Does just the fact it says his mom was born here do it?

The short answer is yes, without a doubt. The longer answer is that she might have renounced her citizenship before the child was born, but that is a big step, and requires very specific actions, which are part of the public record. There is no evidence to indicate that Ted Cruz's mother did not remain a SU citizen for her entire lifetime.

[John Valentine]

will the Dems sue Cruz...

Here's what one of my old law professors said: "Anyone can file suit against anyone for any thing at any time. That's not the issue. The issue is, can you WIN."

Folks have filed suit against animals and even against God, on all sorts of ginned up baloney pretenses. Folks use lawsuits as stunts, and nobody can stop them from filing such lawsuits; they just don't go anywhere.

So, some jerkwad files suit against Ted Cruz for some baloney or other. So what? It's not going anywhere.

We can't let phony jerkwads like Donald Trump, Alan Grayson, and their cohorts jerk us around or set our agenda.

[John Valentine]

So sorry, sten, you have so much of this wrong, both in terms of you analysis, an in terms of the underlying assumptions you make about the law and historical context. I’m kind of worn out with all of this, so I’m not going to try to clear up your misunderstandings on this issue right now. Maybe tomorrow. But, I have already put everything up on this thread, if you want to try to read it with a clear head and open mind, maybe you can work through some of your issues.

Until later...

[BlackFemaleArmyColonel]

We’ll see what happens. Never know with any candidate. They ALL tell half-truths from time to time.

[BobL]

“The eligibility question is the same whether Cruz runs for president or VP.”

HUGE DIFFERENCE, though. Trump gets to stay at the top of the ticket, and gets to replace Cruz, should Cruz not pass the test. If Cruz is on top, then the RNC gets to replace him in the same scenario.

[John Valentine]

OK, Sten, here is your more complete reply. Some others on this thread could benefit from a reading of this as well.

it is WELL KNOWN the Founders wanted to insure no foreign king would ever become POTUS. they also wanted to insure no split loyalties in such a person, at least by birth. This is the EXACT reason they used the phrase 'natural born citizen' instead of just 'citizen', as they had for every other position they defined.

So far you are on pretty solid ground.

furthermore, they used a term WELL KNOWN to them and those with similar backgrounds. in 1758, a book called 'the law of nations' defined the term 'natural born citizen' as someone being born of a two citizen parents.

Not exactly. Vattel's The Law of Nations is written in French and makes no mention at all of the term "natural born citizen".

Vattel refers to 'naturels' and 'indigenes', and Vattel does admittedly conjoin birth within a country ('dan le pays') and citizen parents ('de parents citoyens'). But, this language does not require that both parents must be citizens. The plural 'citoyens' follows the plural of 'indigines'. In English one might say, "All the students and their parents are in the room," without meaning that both parents of each child are present. In fact, and very importantly, Vattel himself confirms this when he states, 'il faut etre ne d'un pere citoyen', or in English, 'it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen.' A father is only one of two parents. So, contrary to your assertion, Vattel does not insist on the notion that both parents be citizens.

additionally, the US doesn't actually have 'birthright citizenship' (being born on the soil) as some believe was introduced by the 14th Amendment. this can be seen in statements by those who wrote the statement, as well as the statement itself... as the citizenship is awarded to the child, if the child's parents reside in the state and are subject to its jurisdiction (illegals do not reside in a state nor are they subject to its jurisdiction). Canada is the only developed country that still has birthright citizenship.

US birthright citizenship, i.e. 'jus soli' with no reference at all to 'jus sanguinis', is an outrage and abomination, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.

therefore, as for BH0bama, his citizenship could only be awarded through his mother... unfortunately, she was 18 and not able to do that under the clause 'five years after the age of 14'. any claims he was born in hawaii are irrelevant, as the US doesn't have birthright citizenship. which leaves his citizenship to come from his father. as such, per the definition used by the Founders in 'the law of nations', 0bama is not a natural born citizen and should never have been allowed on the ticket, let alone being able to assume the position.

Ok, here you go pretty far astray. First, you are correct that Barack Obama's citizenship could have been bequeathed to him only by his mother, since his father was not a citizen. But you are wrong to conclude that she could not have done that because "she was 18 and not able to do that under the clause 'five years after the age of 14'".

You are referring to the Immigration and Naturalization Act Section 301(g) which at the time of Obama's birth, granted citizenship to the foreign-born child providing 'the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for... ...a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen... ...is required to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.' But the Immigration and Nationality Act only applies to births OUTSIDE the United States, not to births within the United States. Hawaii was part of the United States when Obama was born.

You are also wrong to conclude that if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he would have been unable to inherit his citizenship from his mother, but only from his father. That is wrong. He was entitled to inherit citizenship by birth from either parent or both under the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. There is NO question about this. NONE. See Minor v. Happersat among others for confirmation. If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and I have serious doubts about that due to my personal familiarity with facts and circumstances that go far beyond the public record, he would most assuredly be a Natural Born Citizen.

now for TCruz, when he was born, his mother was old enough to transfer US citizenship, therefore he is a US citizen. He was also born in canada to a cuban father... which results in him also being a canadian and cuban citizen. as a bonus, he would also have british citizenship by being born in a commonwealth. therefore, being born to parents of different citizenships, TCruz is not a natural born citizen, as defined by 'the law of nations'

Ted Cruz is indeed a US citizen by birth, having been bequeathed that status by his mother who was herself a natural born citizen of the United States. The fact that Canada, through the operation of its own law, considered him to be a citizen of Canada is relevant to nothing at all. Canada could just as easily denied him citizenship on equally valid grounds if that had been the law they chose for themselves. It's just not relevant.

I don't know whether Cuba would have considered him a citizen or not - that would depend on their law, and whether they still considered Rafael Cruz to be a citizen. I just don't know. But I do know that this is equally irrelevant.

As for your suggestion that he would have British nationality as a result of Canada being part of the Commonwealth or a "Dominion": well, that's nonsense. He would have no more claim on British nationality than any other Canadian; that is to say, NONE. Nor would Britain have any greater claim on him than any other Canadian; again, NONE.

To conclude, Ted Cruz IS a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America, under the standard outlined in Vattel's The Law of Nations, under the Constitution of the United States, and under any other standard you can name. Sure, Lawrence Tribe is right that this is not "settled law" - but only because there has never been a decision by the Supreme Court on the matter. But don't kid yourself. There is no doubt, none at all, that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and is both eligible and, in every possible way, qualified to be President.

[verga]

Nice dodge, how about answering this, when did Trump lie, in September, when he said Cruz’s citizenship was a non issue or is he lying now?

[John Valentine]

More Vattel for you, in English translation:

"The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

In modern times, when both mothers and fathers are equally respected as bequeathers of citizenship at birth, this paragraph would read as follows:

"The country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father or a mother who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Applying this to Ted Cruz, it is readily seen that he would discount Canada as for Cruz, Canada would be 'only the place of his birth, and not his country'.

Whereas, with respect to the United States, 'the country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.'

Please, meet Ted Cruz, Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.

[John Valentine]

Fixed html:

More Vattel for you, in English translation:

"The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

In modern times, when both mothers and fathers are equally respected as bequeathers of citizenship at birth, this paragraph would read as follows:

"The country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father or a mother who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Applying this to Ted Cruz, it is readily seen that he would discount Canada as for Cruz, Canada would be 'only the place of his birth, and not his country'.

Whereas, with respect to the United States, 'the country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.'

Please, meet Ted Cruz, Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.

[sten]

that's some fancy two stepping to miss this in 'the Law of Nations' ... book one, chapter 19, section 212:

"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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

i bolded the bit you chose to neglect. you know... the part that describes a natural born citizen.

your dishonesty shows your lack integrity. we're done.