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

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

[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