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 ...
“Cruz presented his real BC, which proved that he is elligible.”
Ted Cruz’s Canadian birth certificate proves he is not a natural born citizen of the United States and is not eligible for the office.
.
Yes, really, but we do have Carter judges, and Clinton judges, and now even obama judges, that rule by feelings or foreign statutes, or whatever comes out in the bowl in the morning.
CRUZ is the most Conservative person to run for President as long as I have been alive, far more Conservative than Reagan.
Cruz was never pro choice, he has no major life or death issue that he has to explain away like every other candidate has had to do.
Cruz is rock solid on all Christian issues, a dream candidate, and so many here are trashing him... UNBELIEVABLE
.
If you believe that, you’re cognitively dysfunctional.
.
About one out of four FReepers hate everything Cruz stands for.
We are awash in shills.
If Trump and Cruz work together on this, and do it right, they could finally legally confront the 2008 coup. After Cruz wins IA primary delegates Trump needs to sue Cruz as ineligible because he was born on foreign soil, and Cruz needs to defend himself, in addition to whatever other defense he would use, by saying that Obama both running for POTUS and beomg inaugurated sets a precedent for a foreign-born POTUS, since the HI state registrar failed to verify the birth facts that AZ SOS Ken Bennett presented for verification (an indirect confirmation that the birth facts cannot be verified even though they are indeed claimed on a BC at the HDOH because that BC is legally non-valid, since the registrar statutorily HAS to verify all submitted facts that are claimed on a legally-valid BC).
I am glad that Trump is talking this way even though I am a Cruz supporter, because it means that these 2 guys could coordinate with each other’s lawyer to take the fight to the real enemy of America, the foreign enemy combatant who was put into place through the crimes of his Islamist and communist masters and has since then been doing whatever destroys the USA and helps our communist and Islamist enemies.
I believe Donald Trump knows the threats to the media in October of 2008. I believe he may know the Islamist run on the bank on 9-11-08 which fit perfectly with George Soros’ plan to destroy the US economy and allowed the communist-Islamist alliance to credibly threaten Bush, Cheney, Chief Justice Roberts, McCain, Rupert Murdoch, etc with another financial attack that would collapse the entire world economy. I believe he knows SAudi Prince Alwaleed funded Obama’s Harvard law degree, which Bill Ayers’ parents provided logistics for and which was only ever used to carry out the legal planks of the communist Cloward-Piven “Strategy of Manufactured Crisis” which “The New Party” (of which Obama was a signed member) was co-founded by Piven to help carry out in order to collapse America and turn America over to world communists (who would then exterminate 15 million Americans who would not accept “re-education”, they estimated).
On the 2012 Presidential campaign trail one of the candidates was asked why nobody would pursue Obama’s ineligibility, and the response was that nobody was willing to open that can of worms because they were afraid to confront what was really going on there. What others are too scared to do, both Trump and Cruz have been willing to do because they both love this country and freedom (IMHO). If they worked together on this, they could get discovery for Cruz’s defense and together they could expose the coup of 2008 and actually defend this country.
This needs to happen, and I’m hoping they will both realize it. They are in critical position which allow them to do what nobody else in this whole world can do, because they would have standing. Both of them were born “for such a time as this”, and I hope they both realize it and refuse to shrink back in fear of what their supporters, the treasonous and/or hostage media, or their opponents would say about them. I’m not a lawyer but I really, really hope they are both talking with wise and patriotic lawyers who will help them do this.
And if their lawyers are willing to listen, I’ve got a bunch of evidence I’d be happy to plop into their laps. If anybody has access to these campaigns, please let them know there is a much, much bigger story that needs to be exposed and I would love to give them some concise information that could open this thing up if they’re willing.
I suspect that Cruz doesn’t want to go this route, but I also suspect that Trump is willing to force him to, if necessary. We’ll see, I guess, but I really wish the supporters of each would step back and think about what this country really needs, and trust that perhaps their favorite candidate would actually want to do whatever this country needs, even if they can’t explain it out loud to anybody yet.
“If you believe that, you’re cognitively dysfunctional.”
On the contrary, you evidently have failed to read and comprehend the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause, naturalization Act of 1790, and Naturalization Act of 1795. They explicitly exclude from the status of natural born citizen any person who was born abroad with U.S. citizen parents. They also establish the fact that the citizenship conferred by naturalization acts are a form of naturalization that does not require the naturalization procedures demanded of persons born without U.S. citizen parents.
The decision was indeed split, 5-4.
The majority held that a statute that conditioned citizenship of a foreign-born citizen on that citizen's residence in the US was constitutional, and that it was not unconstitutional to strip citizenship from such a statutory citizen if the residence conditions were not met.
The possibility of citizenship stripping doesn't associate with the statute, today
I take it you feel that this is the erroneous part of the decision. Feel free to correct me on that point, what part of the decision you find to be erroneous. I don't think it matters from an analytical standpoint.
The dissent would hold that statutory citizenship could not be stripped, that statutory citizenship is embodied in the 14th amendment, and 14th amendment citizenship can't be stripped.
The 14th amendment has two sources for citizenship. Born in the US, and naturalized. Cruz was not born in the US. You say that makes him a natural born citizen. The principle of law set out by the dissent, in non-binding dicta, would make Cruz a naturalized citizen.
I'll say it again, and I am not asserting what Cruz is, one way or the other, that if I'm Cruz, I don't want to be before a judge deciding this on the merits, and be confronted with the blockquote I lifted. I further want to minimize the number of people who know of this case, because not all of them will see it as editor-surveyor does, as an "erroneous statement of legal principle."
Mark Levin has repeatedly admitted that he has NOT studied immigration and naturalization law. And Laurence Tribe, well, he is noting but a modern day treasonous Benedict Arnold.
.
Nonsequitur!
The constitution does not define any terms, and Natural Born was even then quite obscure, and used differently by every writer.
Look beyond the knee-jerk thought that addressing the issue is being mean.
Everybody hates the dentist until they need a root canal so badly that they’re doubled over in pain, and then they can’t get to a dentist quickly enough. Just because something hurts doesn’t mean it is malevolent or self-seeking.
Please see my latest comment in this thread. If Trump and Cruz play this right they can not only vindicate Cruz if he’s right but they can also expose the coup of 2008 and start the process of getting the whole country to see what the threatened media was not willing to let anybody know. 2008 was literally a coup, and if that fact could be legally documented for all of America to see in a legal setting, MAYBE there are enough people of integrity for it to actually matter and for this nation to reverse the damage wrought by the communist-Islamist alliance whose crimes put Obama into office.
Please, EVERYBODY, please think this through. Trump and Cruz are the ONLY 2 people in the world who could do this.
.
Do you really believe that this country’s most prolific constitutional scholar doesn’t understand where he stands?
One of the handful of people that have the personal telephone numbers of the members of SCOTUS?
Think is becoming a rare commodity here.
.
Trump has no motivation to do it.
He voted for Obama twice.
He likes legislation from the Bench.
He thinks a president should be a King.
Yes, why bother calling the thing by two different names if there’s no difference between citizen and natural born citizen.
You, then, disagree with Mr. Justice Story, writing for a unanimous court. Impressive!
No. I think he knows the law cuts against him, and he also knows no court will decide it on the merits, and he also knows or believes the general public can be led to believe that absence of a naturalization process yields a natural born citizen.
I have reviewed what is available online, and it seems clear that at the founding of our republic a woman who married a foreign citizen did not lose her American citizenship. This was affirmed by the 1830 Shanks vs DuPont case.
The law on this subject was explicitly reversed by the Expatriation Act of 1907, which provided that an American woman who married a foreign man was renouncing their citizenship. This statute proved very unpopular, and began to be reversed in 1922.
I can’t see any good reason either by the law at the time of the founding of the republic, or current law, why Ted Cruz would not be considered a natural born citizen. I suppose that sincere people may disagree about this and other matters, but I don’t think that Mr. Trump really disagrees. In my opinion he is just playing electoral games.
“The constitution does not define any terms, and Natural Born was even then quite obscure, and used differently by every writer.”
On the contrary, the terminology was well understood by the men who authored the clause used in the Constitution, widely used and certainly not obscure in the 18th Century, and was used with reasonable consistency in the 17th and 18th Centuries by a number of jurists.
The Constitution used a great many terms without providing definitions, and those terminologies are defined in prior works and/or are self-evident by their general definitions. The phrase, natural born citizen, is self evidently a person who acquired citizenship by the natural means of being born within the same sole sovereign jurisdiction as the liegance of the parents.
This is very likely a total waste of my time, but I will say it once, for the heck of it.
Naturalization has EVERYTHING to do with the Natural Born citizen argument that you are trying to offer.
The condensed and simple definition of a Natural Born Citizen of the US is the determination that the individual was required to go through the naturalization process.
If they did, they are NOT a Natural Born.
If they did not need to go through the process, then they ARE IN FACT a Natural Born Citizen.
End of argument.
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.