I don’t think this is a smear. This is a serious constitutional question, and now is the time to bring it up. A smear, on the other hand, is a personal attack, particularly something untrue, suggesting that the candidate is a person of low character. Trump is not questioning Cruz’ citizenship — or his character — what Trump is questioning is Cruz’ eligibility for the presidency. If we are to take the constitution at face value, indeed Cruz is not eligible to run for president; he has only one citizen parent and he was born in another country. And you can be sure the democrats are going to make hay with this! And they won’t mind throwing Obama under the bus if need be as Obama is no longer an asset for the democrats.No. I don't agree that this is a serious constitutional question. This is Birtherism II. Just about every legal expert and liberal/conservative rag out there has said the same. If that's not good enough for you, try reading the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795, drafted by those wise old guys called the founders (and who would know original intent because it was they who originated it).
Naturalization Act of 1790:
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.Naturalization act of 1795:
and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
Now I'm no lawyer, but the plain English of the Act's seem cut and dry.
What I can say - with absolute certainty - is that this issue is going nowhere. If I had a winning Powerball ticket, I would gladly bet it. This is nothing more than sleazy tactic - generally employed by leftist and generally decried by the right - to muck up the works.
And all these rags mean what before a kangaroo court?
I mean yes, there is a case to be made for a loose view, that Vattel’s Law Of Nations shouldn’t be the last say here but a venerable act of Congress (together with more recent developments as applicable) should.
And we could say that the grudging acceptance of Barack has made it harder to object to a Cruz.
But in any case some principle has been sacrificed. The only real way out of this is a popular return to the One above men’s principles, that is, the Lord. Otherwise this is a recipe for more and more and more aimless thrashing around as nothing in the law has any anchor point.
The question is: Where is the case by the highest court that says it will go nowhere? Unless you can find one where nobody else has been able to you are wrong. BTW, a statute does not amend nor define the Constitution with regard to the question, particularly one that was amended, (precisely, according to comments at the time, because it unconstitutionally attempted to do so,) so as to eliminate the word “natural.” I suspect that you have not studied the actual law involved and have limited capacity to do so or you would not make such a pronouncement that cannot be backed up.
> the plain English of the Act’s seem cut and dry.
Indeed.
Notice:
1790 Act: “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
1795 Act: “An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.”
Both are explicitly stated to be naturalization acts.
Notice too:
For “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” to acquire citizenship required a naturalization act.