Posted on 01/09/2016 8:42:14 PM PST by randita
OTTUMWA, Iowa — Donald J. Trump sharply escalated his rhetoric about Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president on Saturday, suggesting that because he was born in Canada there were unanswered questions about whether he met the constitutional requirement to be a “natural-born citizen.’’
“You can’t have a person who’s running for office, even though Ted is very glib and he goes out and says ‘Well, I’m a natural-born citizen,’ but the point is you’re not,†Mr. Trump said while campaigning in Clear Lake, Iowa.
Mr. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, to an American mother, which automatically conferred American citizenship. Most legal experts agree that satisfies the requirement to be a “natural-born citizen,’’ a term that was not defined by the founders.
Mr. Trump, who began raising questions about Mr. Cruz’s ability to be president earlier in the week, said on Saturday that Mr. Cruz would have to go to court to get a “declaratory judgment†about his eligibility “or you have a candidate who just cannot run.’’ (Mr. Cruz could need a judgment if someone filed a lawsuit to challenge his candidacy and a court agreed to take up the question.)
With polls showing the race in Iowa tightening, and Mr. Cruz leading Mr. Trump by 4 percentage points in a Fox News poll released on Friday, Mr. Trump has returned to an issue that first gained him notoriety years ago when he challenged President Obama’s citizenship.
On Saturday night, before the final stop on a six-day bus tour of Iowa, Mr. Cruz said: “Under longstanding federal law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
3 US solicitors general (conservative, liberal & libertarian) as well as liberal Laurence Tribe & conservation Mark Levin (among many other constitutional scholars) disagree with you.
“3 US solicitors general (conservative, liberal & libertarian) as well as liberal Laurence Tribe & conservation Mark Levin (among many other constitutional scholars) disagree with you.”
You omitted another supposed Constitutional scholar, Barack Hussein Obama, who disagrees with me about the natural born citizen clause. Peculiar, isn’t it, how there are so many supposed experts who cannot read a simple sentence and comprehend what so many Founding Fathers had no trouble understanding what John Jay had to say? It is a sad testament to today’s educational system and generations who have no understanding or respect for logic and avoiding logical fallacies, such as the informal fallacies you just used here. For example (from Wikipedia):
Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[64][65] (Red Herring Fallacy)
Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.[66] (Red Herring Fallacy)
Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in science or argument.[1][2][3] (Red Herring Fallacy)
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[4] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[5]
A is an authority on a particular topicA says something about that topicA is probably correct
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[6][7] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error,[8] bias, dishonesty, falling prey to groupthink, speaking about issues unrelated to their expertise, or if they are not a true expert at all.[9] Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts, as the truth or falsehood and reasonableness or unreasonableness of a belief is independent of the people who accept or reject it.[10][11]
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.[84]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[17][18] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. ergo decedo – where a critic’s perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording.[29]
Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[30]
Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.[33]
Pooh-pooh - dismissing an argument unworthy of serious consideration.[91]
Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition a.k.a. argumentum ad infinitum
Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer. (Red Herring Fallacy)
Presentism (literary and historical analysis) In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.[1] The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy in historical writing.[2]
The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first citation for presentism in its historiographic sense from 1916, and the word may have been used in this meaning as early as the 1870s. The historian David Hackett Fischer identifies presentism as a fallacy also known as the “fallacy of nunc pro tunc”. He has written that the “classic example” of presentism was the so-called “Whig history”, in which certain eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British historians wrote history in a way that used the past to validate their own political beliefs. This interpretation was presentist because it did not depict the past in objective historical context but instead viewed history only through the lens of contemporary Whig beliefs. In this kind of approach, which emphasizes the relevance of history to the present, things that do not seem relevant receive little attention, which results in a misleading portrayal of the past. “Whig history” or “whiggishness” are often used as synonyms for presentism particularly when the historical depiction in question is teleological or triumphalist.[3]
Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.[76] (Red Herring Fallacy)
You are clearly trying to prove a negative, even after I gave you a link about the most recent law of all:
This is the problem though. How can a law change the Constitution! If we accept that Natural Born Citizen has morphed through simple laws by Congress, then the entire Constitution is at risk with a simple majority of Dems in Congress. A lot of people have posted some really important info, I wish all would take the time to digest it.
3 US solicitors general (conservative, liberal & libertarian) as well as liberal Laurence Tribe & conservation Mark Levin (among many other constitutional scholars) disagree with you.
Isn’t this the argument for man made global warming? Look at all these scientist that agree with me.
Honestly to all, please read and understand what is at risk here. It is really important.
I was talking about real constitutional scholars & if you think 0bama is one, you’re as delusional as he is...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/the_cruz_natural_born_citizen_fake_controversy.html
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/an-unnaturally-born-non-controversy
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429356/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen
http://battleborndesign.com/2016/01/07/cruz-vs-obama-eligible/
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president
OK, I’ll read...now you:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/the_cruz_natural_born_citizen_fake_controversy.html
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/an-unnaturally-born-non-controversy
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429356/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen
http://battleborndesign.com/2016/01/07/cruz-vs-obama-eligible/
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president
Thanks for all your input on this topic. Please keep at it.
Huh...It happens all the time...Congress does all the time, even sitting federal judges have changed, altered, modified the constitution or expanded it's clear meaning...
There are too numerous examples to cite, it doesn't make it right...
Granted, I think every law passed needs to have a constitutional vetting before becoming law...
The Naturalization Act passed by Congress in 1790 included the term "natural born", but the term was not defined. The Naturalization Act passed by Congress in 1795 REPEALED that passed in 1790 and DID NOT include the term "natural born".
Why is everyone stuck on a vague term in an Act that was repealed?
I've yet to see any legal document from Congress or the courts that defines "natural born", especially in the way you and others are interpreting it.
Please provide a legal document from a reputable source that supports your definition of "natural born".
The 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed (as in revoked and annulled) by the 1795 Naturalization Act.
You’d think all you Constitutional scholars out there would know this and stop foolishly citing a repealed law. Might as well cite laws governing the size of buggy wheels for all the relevancy.
you think that a person would actually read the context of another person’s comments so to know that every time I addressed the 1790 Act it was in response to how citizenship is acquired, that and the fact that ALL the Acts of Congress are naturalization Acts as Congress has no need, or authority, to confer US citizen on a child born in the US when the child’s parents (BOTH) are US citizens. But in the case where the parents are married and the father is NOT a US citizen, THEN Congress has the authority to say yes or no, this child is a citizen ... hence the one of the reasons the Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed, repealed and replaced in 1795, and that Act was replaced in 1802,so WHY are you still quoting a law that has been replaced?
If an undercover Islamic enemy agent from Kenya working for the Muslim brotherhood can be President, Ted Cruz can be as well.
Ironic that the great constitution conservative and his followers are all more than willing to trash the Constitution. You just can't make is stuff up.
They (GOPe) might not like him personally, but the globalist sure do like Ted.
The Marxist globalists greatest enemy is the uppity American middle class clinging to their birthright, the US Constitution. So the Marxist globalists never pass up an opportunity to weaken the US Constitution or the American middle class.
Redefining the meaning of a natural born citizen is a great victory for the enemies of our republic and Ted Cruz is more than happy to play his part. Zero got the ball by getting rid of the two American citizens parents part. Now Ted is going to spike it thru the hoop by getting rid of the born in the USA part.
Natural born citizen is essentially meaning less now. Anyone born anywhere that has a single American parent (even if a dual citizen parent) is now a natural born citizen and can serve as POTUS. Totally ridiculous and as far from original intent as is possible.
But Hey Ted Cruz is a great conservative. /s
The Marxist globalists are very happy with the job Ted and Heidi are doing for them.
Amazing is the gullibility of lemmings as your Pied Piper Donald heads everyone for the cliffs.
Hey, until Trump became desperate and shameless, I viewed him and Cruz being honorable patriots as so close that either I would be able to vote for. Now? Trump’s fear of an Iowa loss has brought out a nasty less honorable side that opened my eyes to “Trump wishful thinking” and a potentially dangerous future for conservatives under a Trump Presidency.
If elected, his recent actions show that Trump will do what’s best for Trump first with the potential for American liberty, honor and the Constitution coming in lower on the Trump Priority List.
“...So Ted Cruz would have been a natural born citizen by that statute, as long as his mother was considered a citizen (his father had been resident in the USA before taking the job in Canada). ...”
Good points!
Cruz’ dad had U.S. residency before he married Eleanor, and when Cruz was born, neither he nor Eleanor had been in Canada long enough to become Canadian citizens.
Then when they came back to the US, only Ted’s dad had become Canadian.
Now Ted’s dad is a US citizen.
There’s no doubt in my mind as to Ted’s loyalties.
We have Eleanor and Ted’s actual birth certs; more than can be said for 0; all we have for him is his mom’s actual one, and a fake one for him.
Plus him saying he was born in Kenya and then changing his tune when he was fixing to run for president; there’s also newspaper and Kenyan confessional record saying he was born in kenya.
And now for the last seven years, we’ve seen where 0’s loyalties lie- —NOT— with the US.
A world of difference.
My votes for Cruz.
SCOTUS said Ted Cruz birth abroad citizenship “naturalization” isn’t eligible.
The difference is Obama has the media defending his every move and not reporting the kind of issues that they would rabidly attack any Republican on. Do you really think the media has ted’s back and will just let him skate in when the smell blood and see red meat?
He's only a flaming liar.
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.