Carpenter: The Really Precarious Thing About Trump’s Birther Claims

Conservative Review ^ | January 6th, 2016 | Amanda Carpenter

[Isara]

The only thing funnier than Donald Trump’s birther claims about Ted Cruz is the media’s demand that Cruz take them seriously.

Trump’s suggestion that Cruz’s birth potentially presents a “precarious” situation for the GOP should Cruz become the nominee is silly. And a silly attack deserves a silly response, which Cruz delivered in the form of a tweet of the Fonz from “Happy Days” jumping the shark.

However, Trump has every reason to have the word “precarious” on the brain

“Precarious” means “dangerously likely to fall or collapse.” That doesn’t describe the circumstances of Cruz’s birth; it describes Trump’s inflated position that is “dangerously likely to fall or collapse” as soon as the primaries begin next month.

Trump, who doesn’t hesitate to attack anyone, hasn’t figured out how to successfully attack Cruz who is his biggest threat, according to the polls that Trump depends on as the lifeblood of his campaign. 

Last month, Trump attempted hitting Cruz from the left by criticizing him for opposing ethanol subsidies and calling him a “maniac” for failing to make enough friends in Washington. That backfired as the conservative base of the party defended Cruz on both counts. So now Trump is toying with the idea of going full birther against Cruz; a ploy Trump used to great media effect against Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

Trump, after all, was the biggest, most-well known Obama birther in the world. He takes credit for forcing Obama to finally produce a birth certificate. (Something Cruz has already done, by the way. Cruz gave it to the Dallas Morning News in 2013.)

Crazy birther claims got a crazy amount of media attention in the 2008 election, and Trump, the unabashed maestro of media controversies, is all too happy for a repeat.

Why let the truth get in the way of a tried and tested conspiracy theory?

Although, to his credit, this time around Trump isn’t going all in. (Yet.)

Trump is suggesting, very loudly, that this is something other people may be concerned about. Those other people, however, aren’t putting their names in public. Except for known kook Alan Grayson and Trump-defender Ann Coulter, who in 2013 said Cruz WAS eligible to be President.

If anyone is interested in the legal merits of Cruz’s citizenship, President Obama’s Acting Solicitor General Neil Katyal and President Bush’s Solicitor General Paul Clement co-authored a piece in March 2015 for the Harvard Law Review titled “The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen.”

In it, they wrote:

Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.

There you have it. Top lawyers for both the Obama and Bush administrations say there is “no question” about it.

In fact, Trump seemed to agree with these top lawyers when he was asked about Cruz’s citizenship at a rally Trump and Cruz appeared at together last September. “I hear it was checked out by every attorney and every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape,” Trump said.

Odd, huh? Both Trump and Trump-supporter Coulter once believed Cruz was eligible and now they don’t think he is.

What changed? Is Trump getting different legal advice today? From Ann Coulter, perhaps?

No. The only thing that’s changed is Cruz’s position in the polls as the calendar approaches the GOP primaries.

Trump is still searching for a way to knock Cruz off his game. Unfortunately for Trump, and all the campaign reporters hanging on his every word, Cruz is too smart to take the bait.

There are much more important things going on in the world besides Trump’s latest outburst. How about North Korea’s newfound nuclear capabilities? ISIS? The growing Saudi-Iranian hostilities? The stock market declining? President Obama’s latest gun grab? The frightening list goes on and on.

It’s refreshing to see that someone running for president has higher priorities than taking out Donald Trump.

[cornfedcowboy]

Do you really think a court ruling would put this non-issue to rest? Of course it wouldn’t. This matter is political, not legal.

[cornfedcowboy]

I hope Cruz wins the nomination and the Dems try to push this. It is a huge distraction.............hurting the Dems, not the GOP.

[Yosemitest]

BUT ... SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP the Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it , too ( even though it DOES NOT APPLY) !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

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,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 

And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And 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: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Now as to your comment:

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

WRONG !
It ain't in there.
Can't you even get ONE THING correct ?
What source are you using, the comic books ?

[DMZFrank]

AGAIN, NO STATUTE can alter the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision ABSENT an Article V process amendment. The Nationality Act of 1940 was NEVER intended by its authors to AMEND Article II section I clause 5 with regard to presidential eligibility.

I suggest, nay flat out STATE that your OWN comprehensive skills are perhaps a tad deficient.

[Yosemitest]

The SUPREME COURT of the United States disagrees with you !

[TBP]

Highly intelligent, probably. Very skilled, of course. Look at his business success. And he’s been a boon to New York and communities where he invests in projects. Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean he should be president. As Mark Levin pointed out, by that standard, Bill Gates should be president.

I’m looking at Trump’s record and Cruz’s, which is more than many here seem willing to do. Trump has a lot of liberalism in his record. Cruz has been the most consistent fighter for our values, as a lawyer and as a senator.

Our goal is, or should be, to get back to constitutional government. That will do wonders for our economy, our society, our foreign policy. We’ll be freer, safer, wealthier, and stronger as we move back toward constitutionally-limited government and subsidiarity. Nobody in public life has fought harder to move the ball in that direction than Ted Cruz has.

As to the eligibility question, under the relevant law, he clearly IS eligible. It’s not even an open question.

[DMZFrank]

The Supreme Court is not the “supreme” law of the land. The constitution is. Your appeal to authority does not trump Article VI, clause 2, nor the many SCOTUS cases that I cited that give a definition of NBC as TWO citizen parents and born on the soil. It is safe to say that this issue is NOT settled and definitely requires a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court on the meaning of natural born citizen as it applies to Article II section 1 clause 5.

I welcome an opportunity for this matter to be granted certiorari by the Supreme Court. I suspect that you do not, because you fear your side losing on this issue.

[DMZFrank]

BTW i concede but ONE point to you, and that is my error on the term parents has applied to The Immigration Act of 1790. I was conflating it with the non-binding Senate Resolution 511 which used the two parents term. I concede nothing else.

In The Venus Merchantman Case of 1814, Minor vs Happersett, Wong Kim Ark vs US, Perkins vs Elg, in ALL of those cases an NBC was defined as having TWO citizen parents at the time of birth AND born on the soil. Again read the Congressional record on the debates surrounding the 14th amendment and how Senator Jacob Howard and Rep. Bingham, the authors of the 14th amendment and how THEY defined natural born citizen.

[Yosemitest]

WHY feed the Piranha, WHEN all they’re going to do is CONTINUE their baseless attacks ?

[DoughtyOne]

It's the rage these days,
so lets all play Conservative Review Checkers,
the Cruz vs Trump classic.

REFERENCE