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 ...
You can blame the messengers all you want, but they’re quoting constitutional experts/solicitors general, etc. & I also disagree with the ideology of some of them...
I keep reading/hearing that people love Trump because he doesn’t care what Democrats think, he’s fearless and just goes full bore.
I don’t support Trump, but I certainly do agree that Republican candidates should be themselves and say what they believe without any regard for or fear or Democrat response.
Democrats and their media sycophants are always to going to attack Republicans and vice versa.
Children is also plural. That's the way proper English works.
But, but The Donald is doing it for Ted's own good /sarc
“I was talking about real constitutional scholars & if you think 0bama is one, you’re as delusional as he is...”
I wouldn’t have mentioned Obama unless I was using his example as a poor o worse than poor excuse for a Constitutional scholar, yet you must have known that and went ahead to erect a strawman argument pretending I did respect Obama as a Constitutional scholar. I was pointing out the illogical stance you assumed when you equated the attorneys who agree with your position on the natural born citizen clause with being indisputably correct due to their supposed expertise, yet you omit the glaring fact Obama is one of those too! You lso argue that anyone who disagrees with your position and the position of the alleged Constitutional experts you cite must not be Constitutional scholars of any repute. Such an argument on your par tis an obviously monumental fallacy and falsehood when you consider the fact there are s many U.S. Supreme Court justices, attorneys of repute such as Breckinridge Long and others, and perhaps chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay who disagree with them and yourself as well. You ay want to consider dropping the efforts to Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) and rely instead upon the actual evidentiary record.
excerpt from my research article, “Liberal Conservatism: A Bane to the Survival of a Constitutional Republic”
And for even more resources, I encourage you to read the Amicus Brief of March 29, 2004 submitted on the behalf of Rumsfeld by former US Att. Gen. Edwin Meese III (whom Mark Levin served under) and John C. Eastman of the Claremont Institute in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
In another of my research days at the online Library of Congress I found this SoundexIndex to Naturalization, Petitions for the United States District and Circuit Courts, Northern District of Illinois, and Immigration and Naturalization Service District 9 (1840-1950) Under the section on the background of Naturalization . . . .†(A1, S8, C4) this official government document states that:
Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.
The Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization also states:
The 1st major exception to this 1790 Act was that “derivative†citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen. (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.
links to documents here: https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/liberal-conservatism-a-bane-to-the-survival-of-a-constitutional-republic/
mother and father applied for Canadian citizenship
Never heard this before. Something Brietbart may have found? Their “found” Electoral List is a nothing.
Then you will be voting for the very thing that George Washington warned us about in his farewell address ... usurping the Constitution, which would make you a traitor in the eyes of ole’ George rather than a patriot like he was. Either that or you have simply chosen to be an ignorant dupe who does not care that the choice they make that usurps the Constitution, is the very choice by which tyrants attain power. So go ahead, be an active participant in the destruction of our nation from within if that is what trips your trigger. Just don’t expect those of us who know the truth to keep silent while dupes like you destroy our heritage.
.
Your brain is so confused, it must sound like a coffee grinder.
Obama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship in an overseas birth.
Obama never provided any birth certificate. A left wing website posted a fraudulent BC that he eventually claimed was his.
Cruz presented his real BC, which proved that he is elligible.
The campaign will continue to be dominated by Cruz’ honesty and brilliance.
.
patlin wrote:
“Then you will be voting for the very thing that George Washington warned us about in his farewell address ... usurping the Constitution, which would make you a traitor in the eyes of ole’ George rather than a patriot like he was. Either that or you have simply chosen to be an ignorant dupe who does not care that the choice they make that usurps the Constitution, is the very choice by which tyrants attain power. So go ahead, be an active participant in the destruction of our nation from within if that is what trips your trigger. Just don’t expect those of us who know the truth to keep silent while dupes like you destroy our heritage.”
OK, is Trump a better choice?
... but Bellei, since he acquired his American citizenship at birth in Italy as a foreign-born child of an American citizen, was neither born nor naturalized in the United States, and, hence, falls outside the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees declared in Afroyim. ...Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States." Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
If I'm Cruz, I don;t want to submit to a court ruling on the merits, where my opponent will point to this SCOTUS authority for the proposition that citizenship that depends on a statute is naturalization, regardless of whether a naturalization procedure was undertaken.
If Dems have STANDING to make Cruz prove he is NBC, can we retroactively make Obama ineligible and remove everything he put into play?
Well, if Alan Dershowitz says it.... (I agree Cruz is NBC). Because he says it’s not true that the 16 year old sex slave can recount details of all the times he had sex with her, on the planes and in various states of the Union. So Dershowitz is always right.
.
Trump has been nothing but comic relief in every debate.
That is why the MSM has had to give him his own unrebutted infomercial at the end of every debate.
They support their guy.
It was hurting my view of Trump, and I was someone that watched him at live events on line, and did not want it to end.
It absolutely soured my view on Trump, no I have not trashed him or anything.
Was pretty laughable though how so many people here tried to tell me with a straight face, that Trump was only bringing this up to help Cruz.
Totally laughable, I was embarrassed for them.
Should Cruz be the nominee we will have Trump to thank for this being a issue, a phony issue but a issue.
Trump siding with McCain etc, was pretty pathetic
It’s good that this is being brought up now, and not after he’s been nominated. The reds won’t let this go. They and their creatures in the media will make a huge issue out of it.
There is plenty of case law, however, one does not need that, one only needs to do a careful study of how Congress changed the immigration and nationality laws since the early 1900’s. The following is another excerpt from another research article I wrote and as in the past, clink on the link to get to all the additional links in the article.
Historical Fact #4: Further research brings us to St. George Tucker (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Congresses (March 4, 1815-March 3, 1819); chairman, Committee on District of Columbia (Fourteenth Congress), Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings (Fifteenth Congress); author of Tucker’s Commentaries and of a treatise on natural law and on the formation of the Constitution of the United States and State senate, 1819-1823; chancellor of the fourth judicial district of Virginia 1824-1831):
“The Provision in the Constitution which requires that the President shall be a “natural born†citizen, unless he were a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted, is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.
The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would render him a member of a fraternity of the crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Under the laws of the time, this would have meant that, as long as the father was a US citizen, then both parents were US citizens, thus the child was subject to no other jurisdictions and had no allegiance to any foreign nations.
Now fast forward to the 20th century when the laws were changed and women were given individual citizen status:
On 22 September 1922, Congress passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. Now the citizenship status of a woman and a man were separate. This law gave each woman her own citizenship status. This act was partially drawn in response to issues regarding women’s citizenship that occurred after women were given the right to vote. From this date, no marriage to an alien has taken citizenship from any U.S.-born woman. Females who had lost their citizenship status via marriage to an alien could initiate their own naturalization proceedings.
1936
This act effected U.S. citizen women whose marriage to an alien between the acts of 1907 and 1922 had caused them to lose their citizenship status. These women, if the marriage to the alien had ended in death or divorce, could regain their citizenship by filing an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath of allegiance. Those women still married to their husband were not covered under the act and these individuals would have to go through the complete naturalization process.
1940
In 1940, Congress allowed all women who lost their citizenship status between 1907 and 1922 to repatriate by filling an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath. The complete naturalization process was no longer necessary for any woman whose marriage between 1907 and 1922 caused her to lose her citizenship status.[end of excerpt]
.
You choose an erroneous decision, no surprise.
Congress did not confer any citizenship to foreign born citizens, they merely concluded that that was the intent.
IOW, they cleared up what really should not even have been in question.
About what I’ve come to expect from you.
Which means that Cruz is a citizen of the US even if the statute is taken out of play.
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.