Posted on 01/15/2016 7:37:32 AM PST by RoosterRedux
To: RoosterRedux
-- Do you think that if Trump wins the nomination he could bring sufficient pressure and influence to get McConnell to change? And if McConnell changed, what would be the next step? --
Action in the Senate is a non-starter. I had an epiphany a few minutes ago. I'll share it.
Whether Cruz is NBC or not doesn't matter, not in the least. What matters is that the Canada BC creates a vector of plausible doubt. How, in the election process is this doubt resolved? At first, in the states.
Trump is 100% right. In the general election, in every state that Cruz as Pres or VP wins, there WILL be a lawsuit. The loser in an election has an absolute right to sue on eligibility grounds, regardless of the margin or loss.
So, the political issue is, does the party want to run an election that gets decided by 20 or 30 lawsuits? Before or after the voters voted doesn't matter so much - just changes how the general election is influenced by court decisions, which could well go against Cruz. Trump said, hey, 5% chance Cruz loses. Do you want to go to war with that risk?
Yes, there is a con-law issue in there too. But either the GOP "sues itself" in the primary, which flat out WONT happen, Cruz is certified qualified in all the states, so no challenge on eligibility is possible; leaving the alternative, lawsuits in the general.
We're stuck with that. Lawsuits in the general are dead certain, if Cruz is the nominee.
121 posted on 1/15/2016, 10:15:45 AM by Cboldt
What you are missing is that Article I Section 8 of the Constitutions specifically enumerates Congress with the power to establish the rules of naturalization. That includes who does and who does not need to be naturalized.
Within the Constitutions there is NO OTHER POWER OVER NATURALIZATION. Congress’s authority over the rules of naturalization is only subject to the other provisions of the Constitution and the specific adjustment of 14th amendment which REESTABLISHED the justification of jus soli (not requirement) which Congress had removed in the Naturalization act of 1790.
Further, the Naturalization Act (signed by George Washington) specifically said that children born to citizen parents shall be naturally born citizens. To wit, there is no requirement to be born on US soil and there is no requirement that both parents be US citizens.
So, since the EXCLUSIVE authority over the rules of naturalization is specifically enumerated as a power of Congress, the burden is on you to show where Congress (no one else) has passed an Act that stipulates there is a requirement for your definition of being born to two US Citizen parents.
I think he is calculating when to produce his CRBA. He will use that as a "US birth certificate" (there is no such thing in law, but hey, who cares). The public will be fooled.
I just saw this. Excellent argument. Very well thought out.
Right on, Harleylady. What is a fact is that Cruz is articulate, intelligent and I have no doubt loves the USA and intends to advance her agenda. But if he wins the Presidency he will set a legal precedent for anyone else with a dicey citizenship, who may be articulate, intelligent and have a plan to bring down the USA (much like who is in office right now, who does not set a legal precedent because we all know he is a fraud!)
Cruz skates if his DEM and Green, and whoever else is on the ballot, concedes eligibility.
Otherwise, Katy bar the door.
Most historians now agree that Arthur was born in the US. But his father did not become a US citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur was born, so we already have a history of presidents having only one citizen parent.
All credit goes to Cboldt.
I typed it literally 5 minutes after it dawned on me
Who is stopping you?
:-)
All credit goes to Cboldt.
Chicanery is the normal Democrat path to election.
:-)
Do you suppose should Trump be elected, he could still appoint Cruz as his V.P. and just suffer through how long it took for the Supreme Court to vote on it...and the Supreme Court, depending on how long it took to rule on it, maybe would have more conservative appointees on board by that time?
I wish I could work that fast. Oh, no intention of doing it either, learning on the fly works for me, this is academic activity for me - I have no way to control the outcome, and my persuasion here doesn't change many minds, if any.
All that SCOTUS did was stop the activism from the Florida state Supreme Court. There was still a vote in Florida that was certified, so there was nothing that the House could do.
-PJ
You are right. Not many minds get changed in all these arguments. But I was thinking about that this morning on my way to work... the polls go up and down so minds do change. My mind changed. I started out the year supporting Cruz and I switched to Trump. That was a long time ago, back in the spring. I dont think I will change again.
So lets throw all our Conservative candidates overboard because the scary Rats will sue them! Yeah, that's a real winning strategy for reclaiming the Republic.
Dumb, pathetic, cowardly reasoning.
“What you are missing is that Article I Section 8 of the Constitutions specifically enumerates Congress with the power to establish the rules of naturalization. That includes who does and who does not need to be naturalized.”
This kind of nonsense you are posting is getting to be really tiresome. I have posted and commented upon this same relevant parts of the Constitution dozens, if not hundreds, of times on FreeRepublic and commented at length with analyses of how the parts apply to the issue of the natural born citizen clause and its application. So, it is false and egregiously so for you to write and accuse me of missing what I so obviously have certainly not missed at all and have been voluminously analyzing and commenting on longer than some people here have been alive!
As I have had to say over and over again ad nauseum is the Constitution cannot and did not grant the Congress the enumerated power to grant citizenship to a natural born citizen. Only natural law can confer natural born citizenship upon a person by the virtues of Nature. The Constitution and Congress only have the enumerated power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, which is precisely what Congress did with its enactment of the statutory law titled as the Immigration and Naturalization Act with the part I quoted relating to the claim made by Ted Cruz as the authority for his U.S. citizenship.
“Within the Constitutions there is NO OTHER POWER OVER NATURALIZATION. Congress’s authority over the rules of naturalization is only subject to the other provisions of the Constitution and the specific adjustment of 14th amendment which REESTABLISHED the justification of jus soli (not requirement) which Congress had removed in the Naturalization act of 1790.”
All of which have ne bearing on the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by natural born U.S. citizens. There is not statute and cannot be a statute in the U.S. Code that grants U.S. citizenship to natural born U.S. citizens.
“Further, the Naturalization Act (signed by George Washington) specifically said that children born to citizen parents shall be naturally born citizens. To wit, there is no requirement to be born on US soil and there is no requirement that both parents be US citizens.”
Wrong, that is an entirely false statement. The Naturalization Act of 1790 certainly DID NOT state: “children born to citizen parents shall be naturally born citizens....” Furthermore, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed with the adoption of the Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not use the words “natural born” at all. Congress does not have the power to make and unmake natural born citizenship by enacting and repealing statutory laws. Natural born citizenship is an inherent quality over which the Constitution and Congress have no power to create or destroy.
“So, since the EXCLUSIVE authority over the rules of naturalization is specifically enumerated as a power of Congress, the burden is on you to show where Congress (no one else) has passed an Act that stipulates there is a requirement for your definition of being born to two US Citizen parents.”
That statement of your demonstrates how ignorant you are about the subject, because you obviously have no understanding whatsoever about the origins meaning of the words, natural born citizenship.
Is demonstratively FALSE.
Article I Section 8 specifically enumerates Congress with authority over the rules of naturalization. Despite your wishful thinking, there is no other authority in the Constitution and the Amendments. That is it, done, full stop, period. If Congress wants to grant natural born citizenship to all red heads born in this world regardless of parentage, culture, location or heritage, it can do so.
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.