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

Skip to comments.

Donald Trump asks a Reno audience to weigh in on Ted Cruz’s eligibility
Washington Post ^ | 1/10/16 | Jenna Johnson

Posted on 01/10/2016 5:48:46 PM PST by randita

RENO, Nev. -- 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.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Nevada; US: New York; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 2016election; canadian; cruz; election2016; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; nevada; newyork; primary; reno; tedcruz; texas; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-251 last
To: HiTech RedNeck

It is going to go away because there is no case.


241 posted on 01/11/2016 1:43:01 PM PST by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Impy

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.

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

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

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

242 posted on 01/11/2016 1:52:10 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

I was flipping Sirius news channels, today, and two stations (CNN and PMSNBC) were talking about.....the CRuz birther issue. And, this is BEFORE the primaries and general. Imagine what fun they’ll have, should he make the nomination.

I don’t think any of the MSM news outlets even ever gave 0’s BC the time of day. At least none that I ever knew of.


243 posted on 01/11/2016 2:52:18 PM PST by Jane Long (Go Trump, go! Make America Safe Again :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long
Cruz, when asked to substantiate his US citizenship, produced a birth certificate from Canada.

Yeah, I think would probably get more attention, compared with not producing one at all while claiming to have been born in the US.

Just sayin' Cruz's fact pattern is better newsbait.

244 posted on 01/11/2016 2:55:41 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

-— Imagine what fun they’ll have, should he make the nomination. -—

Imagine the field day they will have with Trump’s bizarre facial expressions, business practices, Howard Stern interviews, mafia connections, etc.

It could be worse.


245 posted on 01/11/2016 2:57:26 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist; Berlin_Freeper

I’ve never commented one way or the other on the issue either before or after Trump raised it. The only comments I made were to Berlin_Freeper, who was introducing fallacious points to the discussion that have no relevance to the debate of whether Cruz is eligible or not. He’s mentally challenged and is incapable of understanding basic logic.

I can’t comment one way or the other about what other Trump supporters believe.


246 posted on 01/11/2016 9:15:08 PM PST by mbrfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist; mbrfl

mbrfl is a great example of the extreme self delusional Trump supporters to which I referred. I simply posted a pertinent historical fact to the thread and look at how tortured mbrfl became over it.

mbrfl’s immature knee-jerk reaction was to insult me with a the superior and degrading “cute and embarrassing yourself” jabs as he inserted fallacious points that he tried to pin on me.

mbrfl now posted I am “mentally challenged and is incapable of understanding basic logic” because he lacks the spine to handle a simple truth of the matter without inserting fallacious points.

American Constitutionalist, you posted (#235) respectable points and questions to mbrfl. His only response was to fling juvenile insults at me. Which is funny considering he falsely accused me of not answering one of his spam posts.


247 posted on 01/12/2016 1:19:36 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: mbrfl

The point I was making was ?

How come they are all for Ted Cruz being Trump’s VP ?

Then after 4 or 8 years of Trump as President then Ted Cruz can be President.

What has changed at THIS current time that makes Ted Cruz not eligible ?

but a few months back he was eligible in their minds, and after 4 or 8 years of Trump as President that Ted Cruz will be eligible in their minds ?

How come he isn’t eligible now ?

No Trump supporter has answered that question, because they can’t, it will expose their hypocrisy and inconsistentcy.


248 posted on 01/14/2016 9:27:46 AM PST by American Constitutionalist (Trump is the pawn and creation of the Media and Political Establishment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

I re-posted my points and asked why no Trump support has answered that question.

It’s because they can’t.....

It will show their hypocrisy and inconsistentcy.


249 posted on 01/14/2016 9:29:45 AM PST by American Constitutionalist (Trump is the pawn and creation of the Media and Political Establishment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

In a couple of weeks Trump will find out that a lot of his supporters had voted for him... by clicking his follow button on Twitter.

LoL!

Then Trump won’t even be worth mentioning anymore my FRiend. ;)


250 posted on 01/14/2016 9:39:33 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

What a lot of his diehard suppprters don’t realize is that his rallies are filled up with Democrats.

Just wait until the real voting starts.


251 posted on 01/14/2016 9:42:31 AM PST by American Constitutionalist (Trump is the pawn and creation of the Media and Political Establishment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-251 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