Posted on 01/16/2016 3:51:26 PM PST by conservativejoy
The support of conservative talk radio has been a boost for the Texas senator in his tussle with Trump.
NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C.: Donald Trump rarely misses when he swings hard at a rival. But when it comes to his questioning of Ted Cruz's eligibility to run for president, Cruz has a formidable defense that draws on the backing of not only legal scholars but conservative media.
Confidence in the strength of his position came across clearly Thursday night as Cruz and Trump squared off on the issue for the first time in person at the Fox Business debate, with Cruz turning questions about how his Canadian birthplace affects his eligibility to run for president into a blow on Trump, saying that the real estate mogul is only stirring up those concerns because he is trailing Cruz in some polls in Iowa.
"Back in September, my friend Donald said he had his lawyers look at this in every which way, and there was no issue there, there was nothing to this birther issue," Cruz said. "Now, since September the Constitution hasn't changed, but the poll numbers have. And I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa. But the facts and the law here are really quite clear."
Cruz's ability to authoritatively dismiss the issue stems in part from the backing he is enjoying from conservative talk radio, where some of the most influential hosts appear to be circling the wagons around Cruz on the matter since it burst to the forefront last week. Mark Levin, who claims around 7 million listeners a week, has been especially outspoken in objecting to Trump's persistent pushing of the matter, something Cruz's team has pointed to in arguing that they don’t expect the "birther" argument to move numbers with conservatives
"Birthers stuck on stupid," Levin tweeted on Jan. 10.
"Birther attack flopping," he tweeted the next day.
On Wednesday, he tweeted a link to an article headlined, "It's beyond time for a cold hard look at Trump’s record."
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham also came out in support of Cruz.
Limbaugh marveled that Sen. John McCain was even jumping on the bandwagon in questioning Cruz's eligibility. "It's getting into bizarro territory here now. Remember now, McCain was born in Panama, and his presidential eligibility is the same, and based on the same constitutionality as is Ted Cruz's,"Limbaugh said last week.
Hannity, meanwhile, said "I see no issue here for Ted Cruz," with Ingraham agreeing - "There's no issue whatsoever," she said.
"The reality is, the reach of talk radio is greater than any other medium," Cruz campaign chairman Chad Sweet said in a post-debate interview. He went on to add, "There is no other candidate that has had the groundswell of organic support among talk radio that Ted Cruz [has]."
Nodding in particular to Levin and Ingraham, who have legal backgrounds, Sweet continued, "They came forward and very persuasively made the case for why Donald Trump's [attempt] to assert this nonsensical argument over his citizenship is totally misleading and unproductive."
What in the content of the article is incorrect? Cruz DOES have the support of Conservative media on the birther issue.
Cites Levin, Limbaugh and Hannity. There all willfully ignorant on this topic. They casually dismiss it without even bothering to enunciate how they define natural born citizen.
A new slogan for Ted “Canada is not Kenya.”
stuck on stupid perfect description for the trumpeeee and his loyal followers. You know that poll said 25% believed BC an issue? All trumpeeees, wanna bet? Lol.
Wow!
Great graphic
So the nancy boy sent some tweets. Wow! What a guy!
Too bad Mark Levin isn’t on the Supreme Court.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. His mother was a US citizen. That makes him a US citizen. The Constitution says this:
"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;"
Ted qualifies. Now, if you remove the comma from "United States, at the time" then you might have an argument on the semantics. But, it's there, and it means something.
LOL!!!!
You’re reading that wrong. Read the way your reading it, Arnold Schwartzenegger would be eligible and nobody thinks that. It should be read correctly as “. . ., or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, . . . “
I guess Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingrahm, and others are as well... They’re the primary sources for this article.
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”.
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
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
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. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
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." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
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”.
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
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses
Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen
Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
Politico sure doesn’t understand conservative talk radio. It’s not that middle America marches in lockstep to conservative radio, it’s that conservative radio marches in lockstep with middle America. It’s middle America that supports Cruz. Which matters most, liberal New Yorkers, or the rest of the country. If Trump struck such a knockout blow with his story on the 9/11 response, as the New York press claims, why is he coming so unglued now?
Thank you for a well documented explanation of the true definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen’.
Most baby boomers know this definition because of civics and government courses taught in the ‘60s and before.
Over the years I have gathered many of the same resources, but have not put them together in such an organized way. Congratulations.
I got tired of arguing with idiots and thus stopped posting corrections to their rationalizations and illogical thought processes. I got into an argument on FR with a Freeper during Obama’s and McCain’s 2008 campaign. That Freeper called me a liar when I mentioned that I had learned the correct definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen’ in my high school civics class in the early 1960’s. He challenged me to post the title and excerpt from that civics textbook, as if I still had it (or could find a copy) after almost 50 years.
Unfortunately, those that have eyes but refuse to see and ears but refuse to hear will likely always be with us.
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.