Posted on 01/06/2016 9:51:31 AM PST by springwater13
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who has been boosting Donald Trump for president, took to Twitter on Wednesday to declare that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is not a natural born citizen.
Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter
Same lawyers who said anchor babies are in the Constitution now tell us being born outside U.S to 1 American parent = natural born citizen.
Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter
NYT: Cruz was born outside the U.S. to 1 American parent: "Under the Constitution this makes him a 'natural born citizen.'†Absolutely false
Coulter joins Trump in questioning whether Cruz can legally be president.
“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,†Trump told The Washington Post on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
If early polls showed that Cruz had a good lead over Hillary, who doesn't think the lawsuits wouldn't pile in challenging Ted's NBC status? Raise your hands
Oh well, maybe Hillary will be indicted by then anyways.
“...the constitution did not define NBC.”
Sorry, but the constitution contains zero definitions. All terms were and are to be interpreted through the common meaning at the time it was written.
To be “natural born,” a person having two citizen parents and born in the country meant their citizenship and allegiance flowed from Natural Law (read Vattel, on which our founders based much of their framework). This type of person needed no statutory law to give them citizenship- as opposed to someone with one citizen parent, or born abroad... Those people’s citizenship flow from statutes which address their circumstance.
Obviously O blew all of this out of the water and so here we are now. However, only a fool would think that democrats won’t use this line of attack. They are scoundrels and do not mind the rank hypocrisy involved.
No, Coulter may be factually correct on this one. Although I think it doesn't matter. Look up the difference between naturalized citizen and natural-born citizen, there is a difference. From a definition of natural-born citizen:
"The Constitution also mentions "natural born citizen". The first naturalization Act (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) used the phrases "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably."
That means born in the U.S.A.
Naturalized citizen refers to those born of American citizens abroad. At one time it excluded those who had a non-American father, which was changed soon after to include either mother or father as an American. If either case applies, one can be a senator. Not so with the Presidency or Vice Presidency.
It really doesn't matter, because the original intent was to prevent foreign influence over who governs our nation. There is plenty of foreign influence that went on with American presidents born here. As Hillary would say, "what difference does it make!".
I truly believe that Dems are the only ones that will ever get this before a court.
Hillary and Bill will find a way to have “standing” by hook or by crook..or by blackmail.
Perhaps you are not informed enough to vote. Trump was TO THE LEFT OF MITT ROMNEY just in 2012....on immigration. Said Mitt was too harsh. You need to read and learn more and comment and vote less.
From Nguyen:
Justice Scalia:
“I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”
The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens". We don't have to wonder what the framers intended, because they told us.
Dude, that’s because when Jefferson wrote this THERE WERE NO AMERICAN CITIZENS yet - let alone OVERSEAS HAVING BABIES. DUHHHHHH.
Natural born citizen is a specific legal criteria, it has nothing to do with being a citizen.
“They won’t and for the same reason all those Obama birther suits got thrown out; lack of standing to sue.”
Because the people doing the lawsuits could not show any personal harm to have standing.
If any of the other candidates wanted to take this to court if Cruz would win, they would probably have standing.
My hand is up....they’d never try that, especially after Obama.
You don’t understand much about this game do you?
yeah, EEE pretty much made his opinion irrelevant with that one. It’s as dumb as David Brooks comment about Obama’s pant crease.
She also said she’d vote for Trump due to deportation even if he performed partial birth abortion on the air.
It would have to be Clinton or Sanders or whoever the Democrat nominee is. They would be the only one harmed.
You're just naive.
The meaning of natural-born citizneship was gone over with a fine-tooth comb with Obama. I was in law school at the time and all the research and conclusions seemed to arrive at one being a natural-born citizen if one of the parents was an American citizen. The Cato Institute agrees. I don’t like citing authorities per se as the reason one argument is right and one is wrong, but Cato is authoritative and cites the Nationality Act of 1940.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president
The finer point of “naturalized” vs. “natural-born” when it comes to those born to an American citizen on foreign soil doesn’t appear to be dispositive and is certainly not a clear issue. I found nothing determinative in my research to conclude that the constitutional intent was to exclude foreign-born children of say an American diplomat. It would seem there would have been cases and controversies back then clarifying the issue if such was the case.
So the Cato Institute completely ignores Justice Scalia?
Natural born had a totally different context in 1780. Of course the founders didn’t want people born overseas to be president.
And if Cruz had been a dual citizen of Mexico until 2014 no one here would back him either.
And if the Cato Institute ignores Scalia, how can they be assured other Justices don’t think the same way Scalia MAY think as indicated by Nguyen?
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.