Posted on 01/18/2016 2:53:34 AM PST by Red Steel
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Thursday urged his Republican presidential rival Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to go to court to settle questions about whether he is eligible to run for President.
Appearing on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" after Fox Business Network's Republican undercard presidential debate, Huckabee said that the Canadian-born Cruz should seek a summary judgment from a court in order to prove that he can serve as commander-in-chief.
"I didn't think it was an issue until I started seeing extensive and thoroughly detailed articles from constitutional law professors with strong credibility saying that this is an issue," Huckabee said. "I think Senator Cruz needs to settle it. The RNC has no business telling him that he should step aside because there's a question. The issue is, answer the question. Settle it. Deal with it."
After Burnett pointed out that going through the courts could take months and force Cruz to sacrifice the GOP nomination, Huckabee pivoted to the matter of his own airtight eligibility for the presidency.
"For me, it's real simple," he said. "I was born in Arkansas. We already have clearly established that you can be born in Hope, Arkansas, and be president of the United States."
Former President Bill Clinton was born in the same Arkansas town as Huckabee.
Huckabee on ABC News, Video:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/huckabee-ted-cruzs-eligibility-problematic-36301903
Look at the 14th amendment and what it states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
stating it another way adds clarity:
all persons born in the United states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
AND
all persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
The 14th amendment makes note of two classes of citizens here: citizens born of the soil and citizens created by an act of naturalization or citizens of other than the soil and it says that they are both citizens of the United States But, importantly, nowhere does its language specifically act upon article II, section I, clause 5 by making mention of a Natural Born Citizen which it surely must do if it intends to affect Article II, section I, clause 5.
In fact, the 14th amendment has validated the opinion that a citizen not born of the soil, is not a Natural Born Citizen by specifically calling such a person a citizen as opposed to a Natural Born Citizen, for our founders and the authors of the 14th amendment perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used and we can assume that no words adopted into the constitution were either used or omitted without intent or perfect understanding.
By omitting the words Natural Born Citizen, the meaning of which the authors were perfectly familiar with they have acknowledged that a citizen not born in the United states is not a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve as POTUS.
It will no doubt be mentioned that it also calls a Citizen by right of Soil a Citizen. But there is no discrepancy here as a Natural Born Citizen clearly is, by default, a citizen. A citizen, on the other hand, is not by default, a Natural Born Citizen.
It is also worth making note of the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
From United States v. Wong Kim Ark, we know what this means. It refers to full and unencumbered allegiance to the sovereign i.e. the United States. In this way, the children of foreign ambassadors who, through, happenstance, are born on US soil while their parents are acting in an official capacity of a foreign sovereignty, are not held to be citizens of the United states at the time of their birth upon US soil.
So, in summary, article 2, section 1, clause 5 specifically denies the right to be POTUS to any but a Natural Born Citizen and the 14th amendment does not act to amend that.
We are, again, left to the historical records and common law understandings to ascertain what Article II, section I, clause 5 was referring to.
I have already shown that natural born citizenship is derived from the common law understanding and language and that it specifically refers to persons physically born in the country and that the Katyal and Clement paper that Ted Cruz bases his own opinion on misrepresents the common law understanding by using a few ancient and limited statutory references as being indicative of the common law understanding in its entirety.
There is ample evidence throughout United States v. Wong Kim Ark to confirm this and I have stated much of it already. So let us go back further, closer to the time of the adoption of the constitution, closer to a time when common law understandings were better understood by all Americans.
we see clear evidence of this Jus soli basis of natural born citizenship in Justice Curtis’s dissenting opinion in the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision whereby he states:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
Again, as in United States v. Wong Kim Ark we see the clear truth of the matter. Our founders perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used and had a perfect and specific understanding of what it meant to be a Natural Born Citizen: it was a person born in the country and they, for good reason, intended that none but such a person would be eligible for the office of President and they incorporated that intent into the constitution. No Act of congress can change this. No judicial hearing can change this. No statement by Ted Cruz or his supporters can change this. Only a constitutional amendment can change this.
How does he do that? Sue himself?
GFY, Huckabee. You can’t make it on the level playing field, so your idea is to place a false handicap and a time and money wasting burden on the guy who CAN.
Despicable SOB. I have hated that phony Huckabee since the first time he ran.
If Cruz is a citizen under the 14th amendment, he is either born in the US or naturalized. Which is it?
What I'm impressed with is Mike Huckabee. A lot of people complain about him, but they complain about everybody but Cruz. Huckabee as Press Secreatary or even VP? He sure is an articulate and convincing spokesman for Constitutional Conservative issues.
seems to me he is naturalized.
Cruz should call on Trump to sue him ASAP.
Trump will help Cruz in any way he can.
Donald Trump should put up or shut up, since he is so concerned about Cruz’s eligibility for POTUS.
If Cruz doesn't ask for the case to be dismissed on standing or similar grounds, the court might consider the question on the merits.
It's likely that the court won't render a decision anyway. Too much controversy, and no matter what a court decides (even the right way), the court will take a credibility hit. Better to just say "not my job." It would be different, by the way, in any case but a presidential election case. How many "naturalized vs. not naturalized cases" do you think exist? THOUSANDS. But none of them in the context of an election.
Cruz can also submit to adversarial process in an informal way, such as within the GOP (I am going to ream my GOP party hacks who allow an unqualified name to appear on the primary ballot - that is fraud, and should be prosecuted as such). I've thought of a few other ways that the argument can be made "more public." Cruz's mission is to make the issue "less public," and avoid an adversarial hearing on the merits.
He's naturalized. Of that I have no doubt. None.
This such a nothing issue but if the Huckster (who tries to come off as such a priestly man but is really demonic)is so concerned about the status of Cruz then he should file a law suit himself. What a piece of crap. No wonder he was on Fox with the rest of that turncoat New York crap.
He sure is. Getting to the other outcome requires avoiding legal authority, and going through contortions when the legal authority pops up for a gasp of air.
I think the question is answered and all that is left is to accept the answer and move on. That would probably be for the best.
It is likely that no Federal court has jurisdiction in the matter anyway, so getting a "summary judgment" from a court on this matter would be no different than getting a judgment from your local animal control officer.
Problem: NBC is not settled law
Solution: have SCOTUS settle it
(The Senate has already denied Cruz support in congress)
Next scene Others join Hucklebee and Trump in encouraging Cruz to take it to court. RNC Gets involved
The problem with that scenario is that the SCOTUS has no authority in a matter like that in a presidential election.
Make sure it's signed: "Cboldt, FR Lawyer, Ltd."
Then the Supreme Court will finally close this legal matter.
Trump has no interest in resolving this.
It’s a weapon and the longer it goes the longer it stays a weapon.
So no, I don’t think Trump will “help” Cruz.
That sounds like another version of Pandora’s box to me. We the people are the guardians of our own sovereignty. We don’t require the Supreme Court to settle this.
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.