Posted on 01/10/2016 5:29:53 PM PST by VinL
After days of coyly raising questions about Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president, given that he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, Donald Trump let his audience weigh in at a rally Sunday afternoon.
"Is he a natural-born citizen?" the Republican White House hopeful asked several thousand gathered in a Reno ballroom. Members of the crowd shouted back, "No!"
"I don't know," Trump said. "Honestly, we don't know. Who the hell knows."
Cruz was Trump's No. 1 target during the 65-minute event, revealing just how much of a threat the Republican senator from Texas has become to the front-runner. Before the rally started, Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." blared, a new edition to Trump's playlist.
"So, Cruz is a problem," Trump said, beginning an attack that lasted about seven minutes. "And here's the problem: It's called uncertainly. It's called you just don't know."
Cruz has repeatedly said there is no question that he is eligible for the presidency, saying this weekend that "the Constitution and federal law are clear that the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen." Cruz's campaign has yet to respond to Trump's latest comments.
But Trump said Sunday that "this is not a settled matter" and that he's not the only one raising questions. He said if Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, the Democrats could challenge his eligibility in lawsuits that could drag on for years.
"Does anyone know more about litigation than Trump?" Trump said of himself. "Okay? I know a lot. I'm like a PhD in litigation."
Trump compared Cruz running for president with this lingering question about Democrat Hillary Clinton running despite lingering questions about her use of a private email account during her time as secretary of state. Later Trump also compared the situation to a fighter being disqualified for not meeting the weight class.
"So she's got the cloud hanging over her head, but Ted Cruz has a real cloud hanging over his head," Trump said. "So the question is: Is Ted Cruz, is he a natural-born citizen?"
The crowd again shouted, "No!"
"I just heard this: He was a citizen of Canada for a long time," Trump said, referring to Cruz having citizenship in the United States and Canada until recently. "He was a citizen of the United States, I believe, and Canada simultaneously. How do you, how -- what's going on here? So, he's got to straighten these things out."
Trump questioned why Cruz didn't revoke his Canadian citizenship years ago, especially when he became a U.S. senator.
"Does he get a pass from that?" Trump asked. The crowd again answered, "No!"
There have been other presidential candidates who were not born in the traditional United States, but Trump says their cases are different. An example he gave: Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the 2008 Republican nominee, was born to two U.S. (snip)
.
The difference between Bush and Cruz is that Cruz has never failed to do what he says he is going to do.
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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to [218] all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society, without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalisation. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens,—for example, that of holding public offices,—and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise a single person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.
It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,†for civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
Can you point out one of those leftwing articles?
Thanks.
Thank goodness the Democrats wouldn’t ever think to bring this up, especially if Cruz was selected as the Republican Nominee.
Oh wait, they did Months ago, even threatening to File Suit. Gosh darn it, can’t blame Trump for that, shucks.
Can anyone direct me to the multiple FR Threads disparaging the Democrats for their not so secret plans to derail Presidential Republican Party Nominee Cruz regarding his Citizenship Status? Didn’t think so. LOL
Oh yeah, Cruz is my first choice and Trump my second. The feigned outrage that amounts to nothing more than a Tempest in a Teapot compared to what the Democrats have in store for Nominee Cruz is laughable.
I thank the Lord daily that I am Immune from CDS and TDS.
Well I didn't hear anything.
Actually the Supreme Court wrote it:
Under Common Law, 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.
-Minor vs Happersett
Seek and you shall find.
Thank you for your very thoughtful response.
What I meant by “stealth” conservative is, one who says he is conservative, but once elected, governs from the middle to left, like Bush.
I did not know this about CFG’s documented history, thank you.
It’s been so long since we had a true conservative elected. Reagan didn’t get rid of the Dept of Education, he supported those awful trade agreements, but on the other hand, he did the best he could considering the environment in which he had to deal.
I don’t see Cruz as a genuine conservative, but maybe I’m not assessing him correctly. I think it’s a gut reaction to him that isn’t sitting right, and that’s difficult to argue/ignore.
Thanks for your post.
>> Got that right.
Except they did.
Great post!
>>The difference between Bush and Cruz is that Cruz has never failed to do what he says he is going to do.
I haven’t followed him that closely myself so I will have to take you at your word on that.
No, don’t hand me that crap. You say I posted leftwing articles. Name one.
Have some guts.
I didn’t say all I said a lot.
If you don’t understand the difference then it’s understandable why you’re a Trump supporter.
Most every one about Trump is crap. Go ahead and post tonight’s.
I’m sorry, was I being an Alinskyite or a Clintonite there?
Vattel says one parent.
I see the situation on the ground this way.
The Republican Establishment has to nuke Cruz ASAP so they can get at Trump.
Cruz is in the national polls playing offensive tackle to the QB, Trump.
We’ll find out how the GOPe blitz works in the weeks ahead.
Did Cruz say he would prosecute trump or did you?
he says it over and over again in fact.
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.