Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Iowa, Trump intensifies ‘birther’ attack against Cruz
ABC ^ | 1/9/16 | Staff

Posted on 01/09/2016 4:16:21 PM PST by VinL

Donald Trump intensified his criticism of Ted Cruz at two Iowa campaign rallies on Saturday, urging voters to reject the Texas senator by saying his Canadian birth raises serious questions about his eligibility to become president.

"He was born in Canada. I guess his parents voted in Canada," Trump said at an afternoon rally in Clear Lake. "So if you were born in Canada, immediately it's a little bit of a problem."

Trump added: "You cannot put somebody there that's gonna go in ... he's going to be immediately sued."

Earlier Saturday, Trump said at a rally in Ottumwa that Cruz "has to straighten out his problems," a veiled reference to the so-called "birther" issue. But he declined to elaborate further, saying, "We'll discuss that later."

Cruz, however, is a naturally-born U.S. citizen, and most legal experts agree that he is qualified to be commander-in-chief.

But recently, he has had to aggressively push back on questions pushed from Trump about his eligibility for the presidency. He renounced his dual Canadian citizenship in 2014, and on Friday, Cruz's campaign shared with the conservative website Breitbart a copy of his mother's birth certificate showing her born in the United States.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: americanunionheidi; canadian; catfight; cfrheidi; cruz; cruz4attorneygeneral; democrat; golmansachsheidi; ia2016; ineligible
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-346 next last
To: exit82

It is the members of the trump cult who blaspheme. I merely observe

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.


301 posted on 01/09/2016 8:01:46 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Mollypitcher1
Yes. But then she was a British citizen long before that, so she confers her British citizenship to her she son. We could go on and on about the this. The point is, it's just pointless. I couldn't give two hoots what nationality Trump's mother was. However if Trump wants to be an ass and continue to annoy Cruz supporters with all his birther crap, we can play the silly game too.
302 posted on 01/09/2016 8:05:44 PM PST by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: altura

So Luntz is succeeding in casting doubts in your mind. He is a nut job and won’t change my mind.


303 posted on 01/09/2016 8:06:19 PM PST by Mollypitcher1 (I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Speck,log.

I am sure you get the drift, being a quoter of Scripture and all.


304 posted on 01/09/2016 8:06:26 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Mollypitcher1

Ok


305 posted on 01/09/2016 8:08:04 PM PST by italianquaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Canada is a member of the UK Commonwealth, yet Canadians are CANADIANS and do NOT have UK Citizenship,

Correct. Canadians do not have British citizenship. Period. Unless either parent is British or they were born in Britain. Ergo Ted Cruz does NOT have or has ever had British citizenship like one Trumpbot was claiming.

306 posted on 01/09/2016 8:10:45 PM PST by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe

So go on believing and supporting a lick politician ho has hoodwinked you into believing he is a conservative. He isn’t according to his own voting record.


307 posted on 01/09/2016 8:13:34 PM PST by Mollypitcher1 (I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
Interesting read.....


308 posted on 01/09/2016 8:15:04 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
Well, I NEVER made any such claim.

Cruz's problem is his father; who was NOT an American citizen when Ted was born. Which makes Cruz NOT an NBC.

309 posted on 01/09/2016 8:17:31 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Trump is a democrat.

He sure walks and talks like one.

310 posted on 01/09/2016 8:17:56 PM PST by Hoodat (Article 4, Section 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Cruz's problem is his father; who was NOT an American citizen when Ted was born. Which makes Cruz NOT an NBC.

Please give the specific text in the Constitution that says that both parents must be citizens for you to be a NBC. And don't point me to Vattel or any of your birther friends - show me in the Constitution. If you can't, then you are stating your own opinion.

311 posted on 01/09/2016 8:25:01 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

312 posted on 01/09/2016 8:25:40 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VinL
He said that Lawrence Tribe said “it was a problem”.

Lawrence Tribe? LAWRENCE TRIBE ! Are you freaking kidding me? Donald Trump refers to Lawrence Tribe? That right there should disqualify him from receiving a single vote from anyone conservative.

313 posted on 01/09/2016 8:26:32 PM PST by Hoodat (Article 4, Section 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: exit82

I notice you made no comment on your “dominion” idiocy, which was the point of my original post from which you deflected.


314 posted on 01/09/2016 9:07:03 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

You are too kind. Have a nice day. Consider that If Trump had not entered the race, Jeb would most likely be polling at the top of the heap.


315 posted on 01/09/2016 9:19:39 PM PST by Cobra64 (Common sense isn't common anymore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Mainly because the idiocy of Trump being born with British nationality had been dispatched.

Funny how that word “dominion” sets you Cruz supporters off.

I wonder why.


316 posted on 01/09/2016 9:34:03 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: altura
Can't you post without being obnoxious? I can.

That's kinda like saying your sh1t don't stink. I've got news for you, it does and you are obnoxious.
317 posted on 01/09/2016 9:46:29 PM PST by JoSixChip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Oh ... you do not want to see me obnoxious and, by the way, how did you come up with your name ... wasn’t there a JoeSixPack already here?


318 posted on 01/09/2016 10:37:14 PM PST by altura (Cruz for our country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Mollypitcher1

No, Molly, Luntz is not casting doubts. I’d begun to have doubts because of personal encounters with people who can’t stand Trump.

But he did reveal that there are more people like that than you think.

It scares me too in case he gets the nomination.


319 posted on 01/09/2016 10:39:29 PM PST by altura (Cruz for our country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: altura

There is a JoSixPack, and then there is me: JoSixChip. We two both exist in FReeper space.


320 posted on 01/09/2016 10:44:53 PM PST by JoSixChip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-346 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson