The Constitution is begging for Cruz to win so he can release it from Hussein’s, SCOTUS’s and Congress’ lock box.
Good, if Trump can get this eligibility question out of the way, then he doesn’t have to worry about choosing Cruz for VP.
The neat thing is that the more Trump hits on this, the more the media/GOPe will defend Cruz, since they need to Cruz to take out Trump (before doing away with Cruz, of course). This would not be the case after Trump wraps up the nomination (in a month or so) - they will go birther on Cruz - but Trump will have them on the record the other way.
So another INGENIOUS strategy by Trump. The guy is AMAZING.
Prince Hamzah bin Hussein (born 29 March 1980)[1] is the son of King Hussein of Jordan and his American-born fourth wife, Queen Noor.
And is therefore qualified to run for President of the United States if he spends another ten years in the US, assuming he took four years to graduate from Harvard.
Trump the ultimate conman, playing to peoples fantasies, saying Cruz is a nbc one day and the next day saying he isn’t
What a bunch of nonsense trumpsters are taking to believe
“It means someone who is a United States citizen at birth, regardless of where they’re born geographically.
“If they’re a United States citizen at birth – that is to say, if they have a United States citizen parent – they are a United States citizen. They’re constitutionally eligible to serve. That’s the beginning and the end of this debate.
Uhm no
4.4 Current Federal Statutes: Current Federal law, specifically Title 8 Section 1401, lists those who are U.S. citizens at birth (persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at the time of their birth), but does not specify persons who are U.S. citizens by birth [45].
The term natural born citizen is not found in any existing Federal statute. Although the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen parent is a U.S. citizen by modern-day policy, no existing Federal statute declares such a child to be a natural born citizen
Some claim that the Naturalization Act of 1790 is an “acknowledgement” of an extant status
Why would Congress pass an act to confer an extant status? Moreover, why would Congress, at various points in history, pass acts conferring in the same circumstance differing statuses: “natural born citizen”, “citizen”, not a citizen at all, or citizenship subject to revocation?
These acts are not an acknowledgement of an extant status but a granting of a status - observe the title of the 1790 Act “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.
Some claim that the Naturalization Act of 1790 established in perpetuity that the foreign-born children of citizens have the status of “natural born citizen”. These people overlook the title of the 1790 Act ignoring the explicit fact that the act is a naturalization act, a Congressional grant, and they overlook its repeal.
If the 1790 Act established anything it’s that the foreign-born children of citizens require naturalization.
To satisfy the political desires of some they demand that acts repealed centuries ago be used - and even that is not enough. That act must be carefully edited removing the singular citizenship of the parents.
The act in force at the time of birth controls. Dismembering a repealed naturalization act and carefully selecting phrases from the entrails is not law.
In 1970 the controlling act is the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 which conferred upon the foreign-born children of citizens the status “citizen”.
The statute says “citizen”. Are words to be inserted into statute, thwarting the will of Congress?
It is beyond question that Sen. Cruz is a naturalized citizen, that his status is “citizen”, and therefore ineligible to be President.
Consider, for example, Judge Napolitano and his comments regarding Trump and his immigrant/refugee comment. Napolitano said it was unconstitutional while FReepers had the statute posted to prove a POTUS could do just that.
So you'll pardon me if I don't take these "learned men's" opinions as gospel based upon their "credentials". They mean little and their opinions are oftentimes just simply wrong.
Well, I guess I have a problem with my reading comprehension then, because Article 2, section 1, clause 5, clearly states two citizen parents, born on American soil, age 35 or greater, last 14 years lived in the US. It seems, since we have compromised the constitution so much, it does not mean anything any more. Sickening to think what I was taught all the years of my life until 8 years ago, is all wrong. This really is the brave new world! And it certainly is not my country any more. If we the people accept this, with all of the illegal immigrants, and Muslims, neither group identifies with the US, neither group understands or believes in the constitution, we are most surely doomed. In a few short years, we will have another alien in the white house, with only the merest pretense of being a citizen. What we OUGHT to be doing is doubling down on what the constitution does say regarding eligibility, and on the basis of this overturning everything Obama has done and restoring our republic. If we elect a congress and a President who accept the constitutional constraints placed on eligibility, we have the legal basis to do so. Every last thing Obama has done, including bring over 10,000 Syrians, which I understand is being done. You Cruz supporters, by ignoring this, are being terribly short sighted and you will regret your decision to go along with this. Thankfully, I am nearing the end of my life, and I will not have to experience the dreadful consequences of watering down this protection as you are all so willing to do, thinking you are getting a guy who is going to restore the constitution!
Where is his evidence that that was the Framer’s intent? He does not seem to have any. I don’t think, if there is litigation that one could just cite this guy and aver that “he says so.”
btt