Posted on 01/06/2016 3:47:16 PM PST by House Atreides
Donald J. Trump continued to fan the flames of doubt over Senator Ted Cruz's citizenship on Wednesday, suggesting that his Canadian roots might be a problem if he won the Republican presidential nomination.
The decision to confront Mr. Cruz more directly comes as Mr. Trump, who has dominated most national and state polls for months, faces the prospect of losing to the Texas senator in next month's Iowa caucuses. Popular among evangelical Christians and conservatives, Mr. Cruz has become a favorite to win the first contest of the nominating process.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
As long as the right people want that, it will happen, without regard to what the law do if it was correctly followed.
What matters is the volume of publication, not the accuracy of it.
500 years ago the sun really did orbit the earth. For all practical purposes, that was the absolute truth, just becuase that was what the right people believed. Law works exactly the same way. All you have to do is believe.
Is there any validity to Trump suggesting to Cruz that he get a court to somehow certify his eligibility? If so, what would be the legal process?
Only political validity. Trump is self-serving, as is Cruz.
Plus, the issue is in court already. Those who aim to torpedo Cruz have filed suits, he doesn't need to do anything to get a lawsuit started, it's already started.
The approach I recommend (in Cruz's favor) is to avoid debating the issue on the merits. Instead, get the cases dismissed on other grounds, lack of standing, issue is not one for the courts, or the issue isn't ripe. Courts will be only too happy to oblige. None of them wants to be "the court that killed a presidential campaign."
Don't you think that the general public finds "natural born citizen" to be an easy question? Not that it is, just that's how most everybody sees it. Cruz and his supporters can say that it's so clear, there is no need to go to court to settle it. Citizen and birth is a natural born citizen. I wasn't naturalized. The public will buy that. An honest to goodness review of the law and precedents, on the other hand, creates an opportunity for the real law to come out, see Rogers, etc.
There are other factors that will persuade people he is an NBC. Appeal to authority - Katyal/Clement article and Cruz himself. He knows he's NBC, or else he wouldn't risk this much time, money and energy running. No congressional authority of any public credibility will come out and say he isn't NBC, and give a coherent explanation. On this issue, with this candidate, the presence of loyalty trumps (hahahaha) being hidebound to the NBC clause, so most of the people who think following the constitution is important, who know or believe it isn't being followed, will rationalize not following it.
Anyway, the best strategy for Cruz is the smiling, confident smokescreen. He's handling the confrontation very well.
Anybody who wants to take the other path will be blocked, so Trump is wise to keep distance from those who have initiated lawsuits on the issue. The cases are going to be kicked out of court for procedural reasons, the public will see that as Cruz winning for substantive reasons, and anybody backing the "Cruz is not NBC" angle is going to lose face and credibility to the (God bless them) dumb as a box of rocks public.
Point is Trump DID not have to go there. Let the others if they must, be the gentleman to a gentleman.
you’re speculating!
At any rate there’s no proof of it or that Stanley Ann even knew Frank Marshall.
In US law a child born to a married couple is assumed to be the child of the husband.
“Wong Kim Ark is a 14th amendment citizenship issue, whereas Cruz is a statutory citizenship issue.”
Sorry but both are issues of “born citizenship.” Both appear to be (and are) “born citizen.” Neither are Natural Born Citizens. Natural Born Citizen is used only once in the Constitution. It is used as a restrictive term regarding who can be president.
Not all citizens can be president. Only citizens with the pedigree of native birth to citizen parents can be president. The Founders used the term of NBC to limit the Presidency to citizens with no potential conflict of interests. They intended to exclude those with mixed citizenship parents from the Presidency. Only “pure” Americans can be President.
In your opinion, not in fact.
Are birthers doomed to spend their lives tilting at windmills...???
Keeps them out of other mischief. ;-)
In your opinion, not in fact.
Are birthers doomed to spend their lives tilting at windmills...???
Yes.
It’s not really a birther issue. It’s really a question of the whole of modern legal theory that monopolizes law schools and the courts.
It’s exactly like tilting at windmills without having explosives.
“It was a marriage of convenience. Stanley Ann found herself expecting and the father was a married, black communist.”
Both the father Obama Sr. and Frank Marshall Davis were married Black Communists, so its hard to follow your logic there.
I’ve never seen any proof that Stanley Ann even knew Frank Marshall. From what I understand the first contact between FMD and the Obamas came after the young Barry Soetero came back to Hawaii and his grandfather felt he needed some mentoring by a black person. FRC was a writer in the local Commie rag and was chosen by the grandfather to be that mentor. Looks like the whole Dunham family was commie!
Not opinion......there are numerous cases in both Administrative courts and the USSC have all defined NBC as I have just stated in my post.
Democrats, or others who support a candidate that is ineligible beside Obama, would have you believe otherwise.
Supporting this are communications between the Founders about their concerns of how to avoid the prospect of Foreign influence in the new Nation’s top elected official. King George III’s German influence was the basis for this concern.
Emerick De Vattel, a Swiss jurist, wrote a book on Natural Law that the Constitutional Convention used as a reference work when writing the Constitution. Vattel’s book defined the term Natural Born Citizen as commonly understood in the 18th Century (though the term goes back into the Roman Republic).
Additionally, if you Google “Natural Law” you’ll see that all of the men that influenced the Founders, John Locke, Vattel, Aquinas. etc, were those who espoused the Natural Law Theory.
Your lack of education on the issue/subject shows in your post.
The only “windmill is the one atop your beanie........
No need to apologize. I was just noting that Wong Kim Ark was born in the US, and Cruz was not. Therefore, the source of their born citizenships can be viewed as coming from different places.
Wong Kim Ark is a citizen by dint of the 14th amendment's "born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This determination attaches without reference to any statute, although there is a statute that recapitulates exactly the words of the 14th amendment.
Some might view Cruz's citizenship as also deriving from the 14th amendment, but under "naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This citizenship, unlike Wong Kim Ark's, depends on a statute.
That was the only distinction I was trying to make. I think it's fair to say that Cruz is also a 14th amendment citizen, but there is some difficulty with meeting the "naturalized in the united states" part, seeing as how the statute confers citizenship on birth abroad.
It's my view that a person who is a citizen due solely to the operation of a statute, is a naturalized citizen. Cruz is not a NBC. Legally, it's an easy case. Politically, it is an emotional case. People can easily convince themselves that Cruz is an NBC, and the elite class is more than happy to lead them there.
Why is it then that there was zero complaint from anybody when Obama announced for the presidency? Even if he was born in Hawaii, he doesn't fit your opinion of what constitutes a "natural born citizen".
But, at the time, nobody, absolutely nobody, thought to question his candidacy based on his Kenyan father.
True, it became an issue later -- after the birthers got distracted by the NBC issue instead of the birthplace issue. But it was most definitely not an issue from the time Obama announced until some months after he was elected.
If it was so obvious, why did no constitutional scholar...or judicial expert...or political observer...or anybody blow the whistle?
“Why is it then that there was zero complaint from anybody when Obama announced for the presidency? Even if he was born in Hawaii, he doesn’t fit your opinion of what constitutes a “natural born citizen”.
It isn’t my opinion. It is, and has been, the definition of NBC of all Natural Law jurists, the Founders, and the courts.
There were challenges...after Obama was elected and installed. The courts refused to hear these cases, I believe, because they challenged a sitting President and would have set a precedent of unending presidential challenges. Had Obama been challenged when he became the nominee and before the election he would have lost.
Unlike the Democrats, who challenged McCain and lost, the Republicans didn’t challenge Obama because, apparently because of his race, in an act of cowardice. Look at what we got! A president bound and determined to wreck as much damage to the US as he could. just as the Founders had feared. (And no I do not believe Cruz is of that stripe)After the election and his inauguration, it became a different story.....one of “judicial cowardice” as Justice Clarence Thomas put it, to accept a case disqualifying the newly elected President.
“But, at the time, nobody, absolutely nobody, thought to question his candidacy based on his Kenyan father.”
That’s funny because the Democrats did challenge McCain in 2008. The Senate, including most Democrats issued a “sense of the Senate” saying that all born to 2 American parents were NBC.
If you’re asking me to defend cowardly Republicans?.... forget it!
You keep using the term “Birther” as some sort of disqualifying term. To your regret, people like myself, are just applying the Constitution as it was written, intended, and defined by the courts.
In fact we’re Constitutionalists not “birthers.” People like you are “birthers.” You seem to believe that Article 2 doesn’t exist as a restriction on who can be president, and that anyone who breathes, walks, and talks is eligible as long as you support them....that just isn’t so..... or why else does Article 2 exist? Answer me that!
You keep using the term ‘Birther’ as some sort of disqualifying term. To your regret, people like myself, are just applying the Constitution as it was written, intended, and defined by the courts.
In fact we’re Constitutionalists not “birthers.” People like you are “birthers.” You seem to believe that Article 2 doesn’t exist as a restriction on who can be president, and that anyone who breathes, walks, and talks is eligible as long as you support them....that just isn’t so..... or why else does Article 2 exist? ...
Bears repeating again and again.
You ascribe that to the cowardice of the Republican party -- which certaily applies.
But my question also involves private citizens -- including self-described constitutional experts, such as yourself. Why was there absolutely no concern about the Kenyan father expressed on, for example, FreeRepublic?
I recall plenty of discussion concerning Obama's eligibility regarding his birthplace prior to his election -- but none regarding his NBC status until well after his election.
In fact, I have always suspected that Obama operatives inserted the NBC issue into the birther discussion as a distraction from what might prove to be a successful investigation regarding his birthplace.
Ever heard the term “the Stupid Party?”
The Democrats challenged McCain’s eligibility in the Senate which later defined NBC as someone who had two US citizen parents re-affirming the SCOTUS definition of NBC.....Cowardly McCain refused to counter challenge. Sigh!
You’re asking me to defend Republican stupidity/cowardice? Don’t waste either of ours times. They should have challenged it at several junctures. In the end all it would have taken was 1 Senator and 1 Representative to object to Obama.
There was plenty of discussion about Obama’s eligibility BEFORE the 2008 election. As I have said both before that election and now the NBC requirement is a matter of “Pedigree.” Like in the canine world, you can’t be a poodle unless both parents are poodles. And yes, it’s just as simple as that.
At any rate you can be sure the Democrats will challenge Cruz’s eligibility and win easily. His mother may have passed on her citizenship, but so did his father, a Canadian. Native birth in Canada seals his dual citizenship and disqualifies him as a NBC. like Obama, Cruz is a mongrel NBC-wise. Failure to grasp that either in 2008 or now puts you squarely among the rank and file of the Stupid Party.
There certainly was.
But ALL of it had to do with his birthplace -- a reasonable speculation that he was not born in a Hawaii hospital, but in Kenya, or Canada, or someplace else.
NONE of it had to with his not being a "natural-born citizen". That didn't come up until after he was already elected.
So, my question remains "Why was there no static raised by anybody -- among the hundreds of thousands of lawyers, jurists, political observers and self-described constitutional experts, such as yourself -- regarding his known-to-be Kenyan father?"
If it was such a clear breach of the constitutional specification, why did nobody broach it until after the question was moot?
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.