Posted on 01/11/2016 6:55:01 PM PST by TBBT
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.
Levin says it won’t happen.
I think I’ll trust the Constitutional scholar on this one.
That’s President Donald Grayson Trump to you.
My understanding is that Congress defines the meaning of citizenship. So why is Trump saying take it to Court?
“The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to rule on the eligibility of anyone who is duly elected president,” BUT they do have jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution of the United States and determine what the Framers meant by “natural born citizen” as required for anyone to serve in the capacity of President of the United States, Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.
Certainly, as careful as the Framers were, and as educated, they didn’t just insert that phrase haphazardly once and only once, as a requirement for one position, but not for the others. The Supreme Court certainly has that Constitutional interpretive jurisdiction.
Not in regard to the eligibility of anyone who is elected President by the Electoral College. There is only one body who can rule on whether that person is eligible and only that body can declare him ineligible. I don't think you are going to get enough votes in that body to declare Ted Cruz ineligible.
This is a non-issue, but it somehow has become the central focus of this Forum.
Re:”On the part of Cruz, he should have dealt with this issue years ago so it would now be old news. On the whole Cruz has had good strategy and tactics. But here he made a mistake.”
Yes, you are right. Cruz gave Donald Grayson Trump credit for being an honorable man. He was obviously proven wrong, as you indicated. He is an opportunistic narcissist with the virtues of most other democrats. It’s just too bad that the trumpholes are willing to engage in the willful suspension of disbelief and assign noble intentions to this snake. PT Barnum would be envious.
Fools.
Were SCOTUS to say that, i.e., De Vattel’s Law of Nation’s held sway over the Framers and that is what they understood to be a “natural born citizen,” i.e., someone born within the jurisdiction of two citizen parents (unless serving the nation abroad), anyone not meeting that requirement wouldn’t make it to the electoral college stage, so the House wouldn’t be brought into play. As it is anyone with even a claim to citizenship by today’s understanding can run, be elected and serve as POTUS.
Where in the Constituton does it give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to tell the electoral college that they can't elect some individual as president?
They have no jurisdiction at all in regard to the eligibility of any single person that the electoral college elects. Congress is charged with determining whether or not the electoral college results are certified. If Congress determines that the person who was duly elected is not "eligible" then they can say so at that time. Once they certify the election, the only way to remove the President is by impeachment.
I guess the Constitution is only important if it keeps a solid conservative like Cruz out of office, eh?
Cruz could praise Trump as a cool athlete and say he’s confident Trump could make the jump barefoot, but say that, personally, he’d ski around that shark.
A clear interpretation of he Framers’ intent, which IS the job of SCOTUS, would preclude anyone not eligible from getting on the ballot to begin with. It would never get as far as the electoral college or to the Congress.
Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
Well that Swiss guy Vattel was the Founders’ puppet master, or so the Trumpets are claiming.
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.