Posted on 01/09/2016 12:13:42 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Unless he himself becomes president, Donald Trump should serve in the next administration as Special Envoy for Getting People to Dig Up Birth Certificates for Public Consumption, because he's hella good at it. His speculation about Obama's birthplace prompted the President to release his long-form birth certificate in 2011. And now, after only a few days of muttering about Cruz's eligibility to become president, he's prompted Cruz to release… his mother's?
Wait, it makes sense.
As best we can tell there are two main strands of Cruz birtherism. One is that the Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the meaning of the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement. Even though it is understood by experts to mean "U.S. citizen at birth," as Cruz was, some opportunistic critics, such as Trump, have been warning about the phrase's not-totally-determined meaning and how that could open the door to distracting legal cases if Cruz becomes the nominee.
The other is that maybe Cruz was not a U.S. citizen at birth, because his mother did not meet the requirements for transmitting citizenship to her child. As we wrote yesterday, "Those born abroad between 1952 and 1986 earned U.S. citizenship at birth if their parents were married and one parent was a U.S. citizen who spent 10 years in the United States with five of those coming after age 14. Cruz's parents were married, and his mother meets the citizenship requirements." This gives Cruz birthers another person's life to inspect: that of Eleanor Cruz, the senator's mother. Democratic congressman Alan Grayson (yes, there are Democratic Cruz birthers) has said that the eligibility suit he's supposedly prepping against Cruz would focus on Eleanor. As U.S. News reported this week:.....
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
The way I see it, Cruz is naturally a citizen of Canada (Canada sees it this way, and document such by issuing a Certificate of Renunciation, or whatever title they gave), and simultaneously, by operation of US statutory law, was made a citizen of the US. Cruz's US citizenship depends on the statute. Absent the statute, he would not be a US citizen.
Much of the iconic American music and film comes from immigrants or forts generation immigrants - Gershwin, Hamlisch, Rodgers and Hammerstein, capra, Zanuck, Minnelli mercer
Irving Berlin wrote God Bless America.
It’s not immigrant status so much as does the person love this country.
Trump loves this country. So does Cruz. Its why they’re leading and drawing crowds. Their crowds are not the same ones that voted for Obama.
It’s the same knowledge a mother has when choosing a babysitter. There’s. Still some risk. Then also moms can be ridiculously careless se can be said about voters
Except Obama was born in Hawaii to two American citizens: Stanley Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis. The Kenyan was just a cover for Marshall since Marshall was already married.
Today, given that many if not most people find statutory citizenship and natural citizenship to be exactly the same, it is possible to be a NBC of more than one country. Cruz fits this pattern. In my view, if citizenship depends on a statute, then it is not natural citizenship. But most people are of a mind that if statutory citizenship attaches at birth, then the person is naturally born into that citizenship, because they do not go through a naturalization process.
For the sake of this discussion there are only two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. According to the law at the time of Cruz’s birth he is a natural born citizen. Case closed.
______________________________________________
You and I know the case is not closed. The only ones who can rule definitively on this issue are the Supremes.
I agree but others call it PC to be polite.
No, they have not. Thomas has said they are evading the issue of whether someone born in PR can run. Nguyen oral argument also addresses this. Scalia has said he leans toward jus soil. It is not settled law. Be serious
Courts don't faithfully apply law or precedent. Courts are all about obtaining desired outcomes, so it's anybody's guess how a court would rule on the case, if it even took it (I think the court would punt to Congress).
But at least for academic purposes, it's interesting to read the history of citizenship law.
That case was argued about in Nguyen. It comes up during the discussion of NBC.
Thank you for the link to Rogers v. Bellei.
I read it in its entirety last night. The Court was split 5-4 (sound familiar?) but the scholarly arguments both for and against were quite illuminating.
I thank you for bringing that to our attention.
So what? If horses had wings they could fly. If burros were ballerinas, they could dance. Again, so what?
Let me give you a scenario: A male child is born in the United States with a US citizen father and a US citizen mother at the time of his birth. He goes on to become Ted Bundy, a serial killer.
Would your definition of a Natural Born Citizen keep that from happening either?
I have a suggestion for you: try to keep your imagination under control and your posts relevant to the real world.
Are you omitting to mention Trump intentionally? If so, why?
No, that’s bizarre. I gave a scenerio that parallels Cruz’s. You did not. What I’m saying that it might take an illogical interpretation of “natural born citizen” in Cruz’s case. In logic, illogical premises lead the way to illogical and undesirable conclusions.
Was Trump born a dual citizen?
I just checked. Under law at the time Trump’s father married, the US had a “merger of citizenship” provision. Thus, the marriage conveyed citizenship to Trump’s mother, and he’s a natural born citizen....born in the USA to parents who were both citizens at the time.
Yeah, sure does. But the split was over the constitutionality of residency limits in order to maintain the status of US citizenship. There was no split on the question of whether citizenship was acquired solely by statute. All 9 found that the appellant was naturalized, even though his citizenship attached at birth by operation of the statute, and even though appellant had not gone through a naturalization process.
You believe these same folks are going to turn around and give hundreds of millions to elect... Cruz?
Seriously?
Only a relevant argument due to the apathy of so many of the People who claim to want a Conservative but who won't part with a penny of their own money to help make it so.
Your argument indicates we should just resign ourselves to the GOPe/RNC/Other faux repubs being in charge and cater to their whims.
Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
We need to ensure we don't get another Obama-like America Hater as the next President.
The best way to ensure that is to actively support a candidate as the next President.
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other who enjoys the fruits of others' work for your own benefit.
PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....
GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!
You are correct.
I found it interesting that the split on the constitutional question was so marked.
The law is not an exact science.
Having Slate defend Cruz is odd. Makes me question the motive. Perhaps the motive is simple; just another means to bludgeon Trump.
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.