Posted on 08/27/2013 10:44:47 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
Partial Transcript of the Mark Levin Show aired live on Monday, August 19, 2013
[start at 0:26 of the podcast recording]
Hello everybody, Mark Levin here, our number 877-381-3811, 877-381-3811.
Mark Levin: Before we jump in, all I can say is, Wow! You guys, open your microphones a second. Thousands of people at both booksignings. Wasn’t that unbelievable?
Staffer: There were a lot of people there, it was great.
Mark Levin: And the people were just spectacular, weren’t they? Except for one guy in New Jersey which I’ll talk about later.
Staffer: [chuckles]
Mark Levin: This… this birther stuff is way, way out of contr…”Now Ted Cruz” … I swear I almost hit this guy… “Ted Cruz is not a citizen!” No, he’s born to an American mother, no he’s born in Canada to an American mother. So all you pregnant ladies travelling overseas: According to certain birther, uh, groups, if you have a child while you are on vacation, they’re not Americans. They’re not natural-born Americans. I just thought you’d wanna know, if you were thinking of your kid as a potential presidential candidate, uh, because they say so. They have no historical background whatsoever… None! But it’s, it’s just amazing! Absolutely stunning! But we had so many wonderful people, and let me add, all races, both genders… I don’t know the sexual preferences, that wasn’t a requirement to say hello…young people, elderly, middle age people. A particularly young crowd, yeah, we had dogs come too, everybody so well behaved, and uh, it was a pleasure. In New York, we were there about four-and-a-half hours, in New Jersey about five, five-and-a-half hours, and I wanted to be respectful to everybody, so… I just want to thank you all, and this Saturday, Tyson’s Corner, Virginia, at Barnes and Noble. I should add, if you want to see the crowd that was at New York, Mr. Producer went down the line, and this was early on, this, this line kept growing and growing throughout the day…you can go look at uh MarkLevinShow.com on our website, as well as the social sites MarkLevinShow Facebook, MarkLevinShow Twitter. Um, Christians, Coptic Christians are being wiped out in Egypt. Their churches are being burned to the ground….
[stop at 3:01 of the podcast recording]
…
[restart at 59:22 of the podcast recording]
Mark Levin: Alright, lets go to uh, Steve in New York, the great WABC, go!
Steve: Great one, it’s great to talk to you, what an honor.
Mark Levin: My honor, thank you, my friend.
Steve: Oh, I got a great story for you, I loved your uh, Hannity special, I enjoyed it very much, I listened to it three times over the weekend…
Mark Levin: Oh, thank you.
Steve: …I got my wife, I got my wife to tape for me, or TIVO it, and she watched it. And she really enjoyed it. She’s not big on politics or anything, and she gets sick of hearing me talk about it, but it was funny ‘cause she said “He is so calm, Steve.” He was, she was trying to do a little wifey/husband training? And…
Mark Levin: Uh huh.
Steve: she said “He is so calm, and he gets his point across. He didn’t raise his voice, or get upset…
Mark Levin: [chuckles]
Steve: …or anything!”
Mark Levin: [breaks out into laughter]
Steve: …and I laughed so hard. I said “How do you, uh, where do you think I learned how to yell?” [laughs] “I just listen to Mark.” And she knows you’re my hero, I go around quotin’ ya, and tellin’ everybody to listen to ya, and…
Mark Levin: Well, that’s great.
Steve: she just … to get me to calm down a little, and I said you just need to listen to Mark. [laughs]
Mark Levin: Well, thank you, uh…well listen, you know what, this is called passion, just remind her it’s passion, you know, and um…what was truly exceptional about the Hannity program, number one, the man has enormous class and decency, and number two, he was asking me questions because he wanted me to inform the public about what I’d written, and to engage the studio audience. And notice we didn’t have a bunch of left-wing bomb throwers just yelling and talking over people. There were conversations actually occurring, did you notice that?
Steve: Yes, there was no crazy, I mean a lot of times he’s got the left wingers on there, and it’s just, kind, it’s almost funny to watch, but that was so interesting and…and it didn’t get me upset, and it just, I just wanted to listen to it over and over and absorb every second of it, and every bit of information, it…it’s just brilliant, Mark, I, you know I hope when um…we’ve got President Cruz, he has the wisdom to make you his chief of staff or vice-president.
Mark Levin: No, no no no no no. And he’s got a great chief of staff, by the way. No, I…I do what I do, and uh, and he will do a great job should he be president. Thank you for your call my friend. And uh, I’m so sick of these birthers. I was going to tell you about this, uh, incident. Just a wonderful group of people, uh, we were in Bookends, Ridgewood, New Jersey, and everyone was respectful until…and it was hot outside, it got hot, hotter than uh originally forecast and it was a very long line, and you know we try to go through it quickly out of respect for everybody in line, but I also try to be respectful to everybody in line. Um…but this fella [breathes out] gets in my face and first of all he points to some obscure note on page I don’t know whatever and he said [cough] excuse me folks, and he says “You were wrong about this, you were wrong about”, and honestly I, I, I didn’t have time to read it, and I’ll go back and check it, if I’m wrong about it I’ll fix it, and that happens sometimes in these books when you’re going into the notes, you might put a word when you mean another word, or a state when you mean another state, so I’m going to check it out, I just haven’t had time. And then he goes, he says uh “And Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president. He’s not a natural-born Citizen.” And I thought to myself, you know I, this is not a subject that I have studied so thoroughly, but he’s born of a mother who is an American citizen. Doesn’t that make him a natural-born Ci… “No, but he was in Canada when he was born!” Okay, but she wasn’t Canadian, she was an American citizen! She was an American citizen. And so, the issue isn’t what the Constitution says in that regard, the issue is how do we interpret that. And the way I interpret it is, his mother’s an American citizen, so he’s an American citizen! That’s not a constitutional issue, that’s an interpretive issue… or, a statutory issue if Congress has passed some law subsequent to that to enforce that provision of the Constitution. So, the face of the Constitution isn’t terribly helpful. If he was born of non-citizens in a foreign country that would be easy, and there’s a lot of easy cases. 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. And I thought to myself: Why do you come here and do that? Is this, is this sort of the way you…you excite yourself or something? No. So, I just want you folks to know who like Ted Cruz. I…I assume they’re going to do this to Rubio, or some of these other people too, whether you like ‘em or not for president I’m just making a point, but now this has become an entire industry. And of course [chuckles] Ted Cruz [laughs], he immediately issued today or yesterday his long form birth certificate. Now, some of this is probably coming from the left. So now they’re the birthers. But some of it’s coming from others, too. People just get obsessed, or conspiratorial, and there’s no end to it, on a matter like this, and there’s nothing I can say or point to that’s going to change their mind. But in my view there’s no doubt about it that he’s eligible for president, should he choose to run, just as I believe McCain was eligible for president, when he ran. So…that’s my opinion! You may not like it… But what particularly bothered me about this guy…he was disrespectful in his conduct to everybody else standing there. They were pleasant, talking to each other, you know…listening, watching and so forth. I’m a big boy; I’ve seen this and a thousand times worse. But he was quite obnoxious. He’s the only one…oh no there was another guy, had a prob, wha wha, he what…he had a problem, he was screaming upstairs, I don’t know what he was screamin’ about. It was kind of eventful there in New Jersey. No, there wasn’t anything like that in New York, was there boys? [Staff: No. Peaceful in ji…you know in Long Island] It was peaceful on Long Island! [chuckles] But is was peaceful in New Jersey, too. It really, really was. It was just terrific. If you could have seen that line, well, actually you can. We have the uh video, and this is just the start of the day with the line. It got longer and longer at uh… at Book Review in Long Island if you want to take a look on MarkLevinShow.com or MarkLevi…oh there is now? The…the New Jersey line? Okay. Both lines. On MarkLevinShow.com, are they both on the social sites too? Or…just the Long Island. But we’ll put the other one up later so some of you can see yourselves, too. Alright. GoldLine!
[stop at 67:00 of the podcast recording]
(further information and videos at: http://queenofliberty.com/2013/08/14/mark-levin-rolls-out-his-new-book/)
Lake, I'd like you to re-read what you just posted and notice that the first thing you do, is berate and condemn the 'other' side for not seeing things your way.
Slow down a bit, mate. You're talking to your brothers and sisters here. I know we don't all agree on this issue, but let's just keep talking until we find enough points that we do agree on, so that we all remain friends.
We're gonna need each other more than ever soon.
How would John Jay not be repulsed by such a definition, however high a regard he would have for Cruz’s patriotism and brilliance?
That's the sort of question that good Americans pray on for guidance. I think even the Framers themselves might.
Would they make an exception for such a stalwart patriot like Cruz? Or would they choose to stand by Clause 5 and seek another, more qualified candidate?
The question tears at the soul.
The problem is, it's not just a "niggling point". We only have to look at Barack Obama to see what can happen when that one small detail of the Constitution is swept aside.
Now, had Ted Cruz been the first man of our time to be elected under a cloud of eligibility, it would have been a mere academic issue, as we both know what type of President he'd make.
But therein lies the gamble which the Framers sought to avoid by laying down the NBC requirement.
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.
Everything you need to know about natural-born citizenship in accordance to Article II was answered simply, elegantly and DECISIVELY (because the court was unanimous) in Minor v. Happersett. The litigant claimed to be a citizen through the operation of the 14th amendment, assuming that gave her a right to vote, but the court rejected this argument because there were ways to become citizens WITHOUT needing the 14th amendment. It specifically pointed to Article II use of the term natural-born citizen and then defined that term through an exclusive set of criteria.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]
Above, Minor explores every known way to become a citizen of the United States, but it only characterizes one set of criteria as natural-born citizen, which is "all children born in the country to parents who were ITS citizens." I've emphasized that the parents must be citizens of the country. It doesn't allow the parents to be citizens of just any country. The parents have to be citizen of ITS country, in this case, citizens of the United States.
Second, the court quotes the 1790 nationality act that declares children born of citizens of the United States (again, this specifies the entire parentage that qualifies the children for citizenship) to be "considered as" natural-born citizens, but the court clarifies that this falls under Congress' power to adopt uniform rules of naturalization. This provision was temporary and the natural-born citizen terminology was removed from subsequent naturalization acts so there is no remaining controlling effect of this type of declaratory language on anyone born outside of the country.
But, it doesn't really matter because a later unanimous Supreme Court decision said that Article II eligibility is tied specifically to the native part of Minor's definition, which as shown above is only children born to citizen parents. Some people want to believe that other decisions defined Article II eligibility, but the 1913 Luria decisions points first to Minor and not to the other popular decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, at all.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
The elegant part of this is that the Minor court ruled out that 14th amendment citizens can be considered to be natural-born citizens. This was affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
This gives us a postive declaration of who can be a natural-born citizen, a negative declaration that excludes other citizens at birth (via the 14th amendment), and an affirmation that Minor's citizenship ruling pertains directly to Article II eligibility. Only the children born in the U.S. of ITS citizens can be natural-born citizens.
The 1790 act shows what the Founders thought "natural born" meant (even after taking into advisement the opinion of a random Swiss scholar). Its repeal is irrelevant, given the 1795 repealing act does not even contain the term "natural born".
Ha! Tau Food, I wish I had a prize, food perhaps. You are correct.
I haven't read discussions of why the framers chose to refine ‘Treason’. My guess is that “Treason against the United States has some differences from Treason against the crown.
Vattel has some interesting discussions about the Roman's disdain for taking advantage of an adversary based upon intelligence from a traitor, but nothing so simple as “aid and comfort” and the “two witnesses” requirement.
The Supreme Court ruled in Perkins v. Elg that even when naturalized citizen parents renounce U.S. citizenship, their child can retain their status as a natural born citizen. There lies the “divided loyalty” meme. May it rest in peace.
Perkins v. Elg
From Wikipedia
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 3, 1939
Decided May 29, 1939
Holding
A child born in the United States to naturalized parents and raised abroad retains U.S. citizenship until the age of majority, and at that point continues to retain U.S. citizenship if he or she elects to retain it, and elects to return to the United States and assume the duties of a U.S. citizen.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.”
Background
Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the Brooklyn section of New York City in 1907 to two Swedish parents who had arrived in the United States some time prior to 1906; her father was naturalized in 1906. In 1911, her mother took the four-year-old to Sweden; her father went to Sweden in 1922, and in 1934 made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had “voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.”
In 1929, within eight months of attaining the age of majority, Marie Elg obtained an American passport through the American consul in Sweden, and returned to the United States. In 1935 she was notified by the U.S. Department of Labor that she was an illegal alien and was threatened with deportation.
Elg sued to establish that she was a citizen of the United States and not subject to deportation. Frances Perkins was listed as the nominal plaintiff in the case, being the Secretary of Labor during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Why are you obsessed with his FATHER? The law that xzins posted to you stated that one parent had to fulfill that and that fact made the offspring natural born. Why do you SEEM, if not in provable fact, but in appearance, to post as though his MOTHER doesn’t exist or meet the requirements his father did not.
Are you aware that Cruz’s claim is based on this law that xzins posted to you, whereby it it based on his mother who gave birth to him, and her history as an American citizen and resident??
How many times are you going to bring up some lack with the father and not even mention his mother who bore him and who meets every requirement of this law?
How frustrating for some of us who have interacted with you on this!
I.don’t.get.it.
Jim, I find it appalling that just like the PDS'ers with Palin, we now have a cabal here at FR that is trying to knock Cruz out before he even starts over this eligibility nonsense. Cruz is as good as Palin, if not actually better, and we ought to be throwing up the breastworks to defend him against these early, preemptive attacks, both from libs and disgruntled birthers. Instead, I'm seeing daily posts from these people trying to knock him down. It's no wonder we can't find a good Conservative candidate of our own with all the backstabbing going on.
Meanwhile, the Obama regime prances merrily on toward complete totalitarian socialism with a complicit GOP-E going along for the ride. It's unbelievable.
I don’t know the age that loyalties are acquired.
Great point. The founders should have had a citizen loyalty oath at age 10 or some such instead of a natural born requirement.
Maybe you could write up a constitutional amendment?
Read that Cruz is getting rid of his Canadian citizenship. That will help him.
That's about the summary of dealing with birthers. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Yes, in the same way we got rid of slavery, we also got rid of female second class status.
In fact, if we really wanted to think about it, we know that one can't fudge about who is the mother, but there can be all kinds of questions about who is actually the father. There aren't too many times when we take maternity tests, but paternity tests are all the rage. :>)
If we went any direction with only one parent, it would make sense to require the mother be the deciding parent.
As has been written many times, a couple of things need to be acknowledged:
1. The 1795 law expanded on, and made more certain, the language of the 1790 law.
2. It is not unusual for a law that has been superceded to be repealed. The 1795 law was itself repealed after a while. You might notice no current law mentions the requirement of being white: "SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: --"
The 1790 law is the first law ever written on the subject. It serves a great function still, though, because it gives a definition of natural born citizen. That definition includes everyone born overseas to US citizens. That definition was affirmed by many of the Founders who were in congress and voted for that law, and it was affirmed via signing by George Washington, who had himself presided over the Constitutional Convention that used the expression "natural born citizen" in the Constitution. These same people, including George Washington, turned right around and used that term "natural born citizen" and helped define their intention for all time. Natural born citizen, they affirmed, included those born overseas to US citizens.
The 1795 law makes that reality even MORE binding by saying that "the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:"
In other words, this law AGAIN says that the children born to citizens overseas are citizens at birth. In fact, and you must notice this -- It says that those children have that citizenship BY RIGHT. It also says those children have that citizenship BY DESCENT from a citizen parent.
It is not naturalized citizenship. And if it is NOT naturalized it is automatic. That is what natural means...automatic based on the very NATURE of their birth.
They are NATURAL born citizens. They are not NATURALIZED citizens.
The first, NATURAL, is automatic. The second, NATURALIZED, is by government act.
The main idea being, where most legal scholars who have studied the issue (both left and right) disagree with those who claim Cruz is ineligible, here they are INSISTIMG their dubious claims of ineligibility are ABSOLUTELY AND UNERRINGLY true base on internet ramblings rather than precedent of case law. It's this willingness to take out one of our finest potential candidates over these dubious claims I find so niggling.
It's this willingness to participate with the democrat/media complex in taking him out that is doubly disturbing.
As to "condemning and berating", using the words niggling and Pharisaical is hardly overwhelming Alinsky methodology; compared to what I've seen thrown at the anti-birthers it's mild milque toast.
Perhaps if those who are on the other side would care to deal genuinely and honestly with the main points summarized in post 105, those arguments backing his eligibility, I might feel better about them.
The relevant section about Ted Cruz says:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
Ted Cruz is a person born outside the USA with one parent (father) an alien and the other parent a citizen (mother) who did reside in the US for all the required time.
NOW, the situation of TennNana is known to TennNana and bears no relationship to that of Ted Cruz. If she says her family did not meet the residency requirements, then they didn't meet them so far as I'm concerned.
However, if her mom did meet those requirements, then she fits the law.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with Ted Cruz.
And the case of Cruz's father is covered in the law. Cruz's Dad could have been the alien E.T., and it wouldn't matter. It's covered by the law.
“Cruz is the farthest from the lesser of two evils since Reagan.”
The lesser of two evils still equals a lesser of two evils. It doesn’t make it better if it’s a lesser of a lesser of two evils.
You, too, have been given good and sound reasons to show you are likely wrong in your opinion of eligibility. You may want to rethink your position.
“Niggling” and “Pharisee” are not what I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is the pejorative “birther” or, in your words, “idiot birther”. Then there is “liar”, “moron”, etc. etc. from your FRiends.
What I really want to know is why your side is so strongly pushing someone whose eligibility is so questionable. I wish your side wasn’t cooperating with the left quite so readily.
I want this type of politcian to succeed, also. Finding a reasonably honest, literate, articulate spokesman for conservativism is our wildest dream. But I must insist that whomever we pick and spend our hard earned money to support is eligible for the office.
I have seen no one refute the points of xzins or P. Marlowe. Not even close. I have seen no one refute the main points summarized in # 105, not even close.
I'm glad you find Hillary or Christie elegible, but not Cruz. I find that profoundly disturbing.
Also, if you find Cruz to be a choice between the lesser of two evils, you ought to never vote again.
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.