Carpenter: The Really Precarious Thing About Trumpâ€™s Birther Claims

Thanks for trying to rescue me from myself.

Somehow I’ll pull through. And when I have, I’ll be voting for Donald Trump.

Conservative or not, I really donâ€™t care.

++++++

then support obama since you just admitted being Conservative doesn’t matter to you.

You are a complete nut case. I have NEVER supported Obama! I am not someone so insipidly insecure that I have to go around wearing a label in order to know who I am. You Cruz people act like a hunch of babies.

George Washington fought for the British. So much for your consistency dogma. MOST people many times in their lives need to change their opinion on something if they have any intelligence. Cruz’s mouth and his votes don’t match. Actions speak louder than words. He is NOT “conservative” when he votes AGAINST the Constitutional Powers of Congress AS DESIGNATED IN THE CONSTITUTION. And then tries to lie about it! He is NOT “conservative” when he votes for giving away America’s Sovereignty in trade deals he doesn’t even understand. He is a flunky for the Establishment and the New World Order, just look at who is funding him!

Trump has a long progressive record. Everyone from Glenn Beck to Huffington Post to National Review to MSNBC to Michelle Malkin has noticed it.
......................................................
Now it is easy to see why you are so rattle-brained. Only one person on that list has any degree of acceptability. All the rest are garbage and LEFT WING PROPAGANDA SHILLS. Since you must be a diligent follower, you can’t call yourself a conservative.

You said, “ Conservative or not, I really donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care.”

This is a Conservative forum not the Trump forum.

If you don’t like being called out on you saying you dont care about labels or Conservative then don’t post to someone who says it matters. That kinda makes you the nutcase...

Your opinion has no weight with me. AND I don’t really care who wears what label. I think for myself and always will. Maybe you should try it sometime. AND I’ll post to anyone I damn well please. The first Amendment still exists...just barely.

Then expect disagreement especially when you make insanely stupid opinions saying labels & being Conservative don’t matter then say they do matter. Thats nutty.

I deliberately posted a wide range of views to make the point.

Cruzâ€™s mouth and his votes donâ€™t match.

This is an uninformed statement. His words match his voting record very well.

And Trump has changed his party registration multiple times, taken liberal stands on multiple issues, attacked Cruz on the same grounds as the Establishment does, made more donations to Democrats, and then tried to tell us he's a conservative.

I understand that there is no perfect candidate. But I'm looking for the most conservative and most constitutionalist. Trump is certainly NOT that person.

Cruz isn’t surging in any poll I’ve seen. He’s close in Iowa that’s about it.

I simply DISAGREE !

TED CRUZ is by far, the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got !

MARK LEVIN explains that Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen ( 7:30 )

Here's the supporting article from Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
Like most immigrants, he does a job Americans won't: defending the Constitution.

Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

Ilya Shapiro

As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas - - love him or hate him - - continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret:Ted Cruz was born in Canada. (Full disclosure: I'm Canadian myself, with a green card. Also, Cruz has been a friend since his days representing Texas before the Supreme Court.) But does that mean that Cruz's presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards,having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate? No, actually, and it's not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen" of the United States,the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency.(The Founding Fathers didn't want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.) What's a "natural born citizen" ? The Constitution doesn't say, but the Framers' understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate thatthe phrase means both birth abroad to American parents - - in a manner regulated by federal law - - and birth within the nation's territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts. There's no ideological debate here:Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson - -who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases - - co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain's eligibility.Recall that McCain --lately one of Cruz's chief antagonists - - was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone. In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth - -as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later ("naturalizes" or who isn't a citizen at all - - can be president. So the one remaining question iswhether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth.That's an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens - -or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere - - citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here. That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 - - Cruz was born in 1970 - -someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D. So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there's no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen?Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn't have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn't have mattered whether that birth took place inHawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else.(For those born since 1986, by the way,the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years,at least two of which must be after the age of 14.) In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn't be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain - -and could've said aboutObama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater - - Cruz "is certainly NOT the hypothetical 'foreigner'who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief."

Now stuff that in your FEEBLE BRAIN, and STEW ON IT for a long, LONG, LONG TIME !

I do believe that we have conclusively established that we have fundamental and irreconcillable differences of opinion, and that’s OK. My suspicions are always aroused by those who posit that a significant constitutional question is “settled”, especially when that matter has never been adjudicated before the Supreme Court.

I welcome the opportunity to have this matter adjudicated with the parties under oath and subject to cross examination. I am ALL FOR a definitive ruling on this matter from SCOTUS. I suspect that you desire an outcome that will enable your ineligible candidate, irrespective of the constitutional intent.

The Supreme Court
HAS CONFIRMED
that definition
ON MULTIPLE occasions
IN VARIOUS CONTEXTS.

You mean the definition of a “natural born citizen” as having TWO citizen parents and born on the soil Minor vs Happersett, the Venus Merchantman Case of 1814, Wong Kim Ark vs US, Perkins vs Elg, and the debates on the 14th amendment by the authors of the 14th amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard and Rep. Bingham who concurred with that definition. Again TWO CITIZEN PARENTS at the TIME OF BIRTH and BORN ON THE SOIL. Please read the cases and those definitions of natural born citizen in the Supreme Court.

I will defer to the SCOTUS and concur with them on that.

Somehow it is amazing that you Cruz people cannot admit that Trump is a highly intelligent accomplished leader who has the skills to straighten out our economy which is the number one thing we need to worry about. You can believe in the Constitution all you want to, but unless you can operate in the real world, you’re just another idealistic number pusher politician. Cruz has very little knowledge outside of a courthouse. AND he is not eligible. We’ve played that game with Obama and you guys want to do it all over again!

WRONG !
Click on it and READ IT AGAIN !

MARK LEVIN explains that Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen ( 7:30 )

Here's the supporting article from Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
Like most immigrants, he does a job Americans won't: defending the Constitution.

Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

Ilya Shapiro

As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas - - love him or hate him - - continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret:Ted Cruz was born in Canada. (Full disclosure: I'm Canadian myself, with a green card. Also, Cruz has been a friend since his days representing Texas before the Supreme Court.) But does that mean that Cruz's presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards,having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate? No, actually, and it's not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen" of the United States,the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency.(The Founding Fathers didn't want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.) What's a "natural born citizen" ? The Constitution doesn't say, but the Framers' understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate thatthe phrase means both birth abroad to American parents - - in a manner regulated by federal law - - and birth within the nation's territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts. There's no ideological debate here:Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson - -who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases - - co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain's eligibility.Recall that McCain --lately one of Cruz's chief antagonists - - was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone. In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth - -as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later ("naturalizes" or who isn't a citizen at all - - can be president. So the one remaining question iswhether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth.That's an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens - -or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere - - citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here. That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 - - Cruz was born in 1970 - -someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D. So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there's no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen?Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn't have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn't have mattered whether that birth took place inHawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else.(For those born since 1986, by the way,the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years,at least two of which must be after the age of 14.) In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn't be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain - -and could've said aboutObama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater - - Cruz "is certainly NOT the hypothetical 'foreigner'who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief."

Now stuff that in your FEEBLE BRAIN, and STEW ON IT for a long, LONG, LONG TIME !

You continually refer to the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was REPEALED in 1795 due in part to concerns about possible negative repercussions to the natural born citizen provisions of Article II. You seem to be unable to acknowledge that that 1790 Act IS NO LONGER LAW.

Note the emphasis in the 1790 Act on the FATHER. The framers were patriarchical, and they believed that the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship condition of the FATHERS. That emphasis was due in large measure to their reliance upon the Emmerich de Vattel definition of natural born citizen derived from the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Law of NationsÃ¢â‚¬Â which is referred to in the opening clause of Article I.

The only definition for a constitutional term within the constitution is for the crime of treason. There is no definition for high crimes and misdemeanors either, but that has not stopped impeachment matters from proceeding.

Also, even in the 1790 Act, the wording of it made reference to parent(s) plural, not singular.

Finally, NO STATUTE can modify the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision. That can only be done thru an Article V amendment process.

I will stack my analysis against Ben Shapiro’s or Mark Levin’s OR ANY DAMN BODY ELSE who makes up their own constitution for whatever reason. They are not the fount of all wisdom. I wish to see this matter adjudicated. You seem not to. I think that tells us all we need to to know.

Now stuff that in your FEEBLE BRAIN, and STEW ON IT for a long, LONG, LONG TIME !

You cannot read, can you ?
WHEN have I referred to "the Naturalization Act of 1790" ?
The link and the basis for that article is The Nationality Act of 1940 , not 1790 !