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)
Yeah, but they didn't shut down Reagan, did they? Reagan kept plugging and ended up not only with the nomination but with 2 landslide elections to the Presidency.
Trump is an unknown, but one thing that Reagan was that Trump is not is ..... HUMBLE.
Reagan could take criticism without resorting to personal attacks on his critics. Trump seems to be incapable of taking any legitimate criticism and he seems incapable of keeping his stupid opinions to himself.
Cruz may not be a perfect candidate, but Trump is a loose cannon. I mean, giving praise to the leaders of North Korea's murderous regime because they can lead? What kind of serious candidate could get away with that?
>>but they didn’t shut down Reagan, did they? Reagan kept plugging and ended up not only with the nomination but with 2 landslide elections to the Presidency.
When I wrote “shut down”, I was thinking about how the libs would always shut him down by announcing his budget was “DOA”, dead on arrival, and how he had to settle for so much less than what he could have accomplished.
>>Trump is an unknown, but one thing that Reagan was that Trump is not is ..... HUMBLE.
When I read about the people who know him personally, (not only friends and former longtime employees, but also people who he meets and helps), they say that he has a public persona, which is as you describe, and a private one, which is the opposite. As I don’t know him personally, I accede to those who know him personally.
>>Reagan could take criticism without resorting to personal attacks on his critics. Trump seems to be incapable of taking any legitimate criticism and he seems incapable of keeping his stupid opinions to himself.
No doubt, his personality is different from Reagan’s. I don’t see the significance here. Our country is in very serious trouble, economic, social, etc., with more to come. I have to choose the candidate who I think will be able to do the most to mitigate it, repair it, and restore it.
>>Cruz may not be a perfect candidate, but Trump is a loose cannon. I mean, giving praise to the leaders of North Korea’s murderous regime because they can lead? What kind of serious candidate could get away with that?
I see Trump as an expert who calculates his strategy much like a military general. He graduated from a military academy, and his classmates seem unanimous in their praise for him and his abilities.
When he makes these remarks, sometimes I wonder if it part of that strategy, or just humorous ad-libs designed to make the libs go nuts and invite him to come onto their TV shows (and get advertising for free). The crazy NK guy sure does lead, that is true, but of course, the rest of it is that he rules strongly because he engenders fear among his people.
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.
Looks like the Chief Justice thinks "anchor babies" is a bunch of crap.
Once again, I agree with him.
Rubio is an anchor baby...baby. So is Jindal.
Why is everyone going after Cruz?
Because of the WaPo question.
But she is eligible...until she's indicted.
Cruz is eminently qualified.
Absolutely, but he's not eligible.
He's qualified up the ying-yang, but sadly, he's not eligible.
Same thing. You set the low standard when you stated there are only two kinds of citizens, naturalized and citizens at birth.
You want anchor babies as president. The founders wanted children of citizens born in the US.
PART is cut and dried and part is not. If you were born in the USA and both of your parents were citizens of the USA at the time of your birth, there’s no question but that you are a natural born citizen. If you were born in the USA and your parents were not citizens, there is a question. If you were not ‘born within the jurisdiction” you may have an even bigger question, unless your parent(s) were in the service of the USA at the time of your birth outside the jurisdiction.
But when a Justice writes that the interpretation must be sought elsewhere, the interpretation must be sought elsewhere. SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett (1874) elected to put off any such definition. The current court would not entertain any case before it that presented the question. BTW, Minor was not about presidential eligibility, but about women’s suffrage.
Back when the Obama eligibility questions were a hot topic, I had hoped that this SCOTUS would tackle the question exactly because of the ‘anchor babies’ question that would inevitably arise I recall at the time, when it appeared Rubio might be a potential candidate who’d encounter the problem, I expressed on one of these threads (if not more) that I wished he would present the question as someone who might have standing. I don’t think at that time that anyone outside of TX knew who Cruz was.
Sixteen (or is it seventeen) candidates in the Republican primary and three have questionable eligibility re natural born citizen.
Agreed. It makes me sick to my stomach honestly.
No, you're an anchor baby.
If you were not "born within the jurisdiction" you may have an even bigger question
Yeah, then you're not even a citizen.
But when a Justice writes that the interpretation must be sought elsewhere, the interpretation must be sought elsewhere.
Chief Justice Waite was not ambiguous, that "elsewhere" the court alluded to was a definition from common law.
SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett (1874) elected to put off any such definition.
They didn't put it off, they accepted it, and inadvertently codified it.
BTW, Minor was not about presidential eligibility, but about women's suffrage.
That's immaterial, the term in question "Natural Born Citizen" was addressed and its definition accepted in this case, regardless of main issue before the court.
This opinion was written and presented, the ruling was without dissent.
Yeah, Rubio and Jindal are just padding resumes, or something. Cruz may be setting a trap for Obama.
.
Dear moron,
The Hawaii BC is a fraud concocted in NY.
Cruz’ BC is posted in numerous places, including several FR threads.
.
Trump loves himself, and his money.
Nothing else.
Not according to the constitutional scholars. of course, those are probably the same constitutional scholars that claim Ted Cruz’s canadian birth certifate somehow makes him a Natural born citizen. Moron.
.
You wouldn’t know a constitution nor a scholar if one smacked you upside the head.
You’re a plastic joke.
this is all you have left, personal attacks.
That’s wishful thinking, but if it makes you happy, who am I to burst your bubble? Believe what you will.
You’re only depressing yourself. Such a sad little person. Try to smile for us. Go Trump Go!
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.