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 ...
& how about Paul Clement (Solicitor General under G.W. Bush), Neal Katyal (Solicitor General under Obama)& Ted Olson (another Solicitor General under G.W. Bush)who all state that he’s eligible? Levin has put out an offer to debate anyone re Cruz’s eligibility. Another point is that Tribe (whom I can’t stand) is a liberal & still says Cruz is eligible.
you are misreading Shanks v DuPont because Shanks citizenship was wholly dependent upon the laws that govern British subjects who under those laws, owed perpetual allegiance to the Crown that ONLY the Crown could absolve.
And it was these British barbaric feudal laws of people as subjects and not free citizens that eventually lead to the War of 1812 where it was settled once and for all that the British crown had no authority over and could not require allegiance of the newly freed citizens of the newly formed nation of the United States of America. Ann Shanks was not one who chose freedom, she chose to remain the British subject that she had been from her birth.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/242/case.html
The question, then, is whether her subsequent removal with her husband operated as a virtual dissolution of her allegiance and fixed her future allegiance to the British Crown
Page 28 U. S. 247
by the Treaty of Peace of 1783. Our opinion is that it did. In the first place, she was born under the allegiance of the British Crown, and no act of the government of Great Britain ever absolved her from that allegiance. Her becoming a citizen of South Carolina did not, ipso facto, work any dissolution of her original allegiance [end quote]
What you have failed to apply here is the fact that at the time Ann Scott married Mr. Shanks and then left America, never returning, Ann chose to remain a natural born British subject. There was no federal government at that time, there was no Constitution at that time, all that existed was the Articles of Confederation that gave NO authority to a central government regarding citizenship. At the time in question, south Carolina dictated who was and who was not a citizen and at the time of Ann Scott Shank’s birth, South Carolina was a British territory under British laws, including those of citizenship. And therefore, where it is stated that Ann did not loose her birthright citizenship, that citizenship was British.
Now because her father adhered to the cause of the revolution, Ann then became, by proxy through her father, a naturalized citizen of the state of South Carolina as did every British born subject in the state who adhered to the cause of the revolution and took the oath of allegiance to the revolution.
Therefore, one needs to look to British Law of the time as THAT is the law that governed, not any US laws that may have subsequently been passed more than a decade after the fact. While Ann remained in her father’s house, she retained the privileges of her father’s citizenship, however, when Ann chose to leave and rejoin the Brits in the midst of the conflict, leave South Carolina and remain in Britain, raise her family as British subjects and die as a British subject, that choice of Ann’s is what caused her children to have to file the claim under the protection of the 1783 Peace Treaty that states,
“That British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein, ... &c., and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as respects the said lands, and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens.”
Ann Shanks was an alien in regards to citizenship, she was not an alien in regards to inheritance. AND THAT was the finding of the court.
Trump was the ONLY person willing to take the bull by the horns and say that Obama was hiding something by refusing to address the questions regarding his documentation. The end result was that Obama blinked and posted a forged BC on the White House website, which is now the subject of a criminal investigation, along with an investigation of a forged selective service registration. Trump was ridiculed by all, including at a press correspondents’ dinner by the Jerk-in-Chief himself.
Trump was one of the few who rightly questioned Loretta Fuddy’s “accidental death”. There is way more that needs to be said about that and I suspect Trump knows that too, though I’d love to fill his lawyer’s ear with probably more than he’s already got. He did that even though he knew it would get him labeled a “kook” by the know-nothings who don’t take the time to research anything for themselves. Or are complicit, and that includes a lot more people than anybody here would be comfortable in admitting.
I do not, for one second, buy the idea that Trump is only in it for himself. He has lost too much comfort from the stands he’s been willing to make, and once he loses an election he would no longer have adoring fans to make it all worthwhile. You should try being a laughingstock for the sake of the truth; it’s not fun. I am a Cruz supporter, but Trump has my profound respect because it seems he cares about what is true, and not just what is popular. That’s what I respect about Cruz too, and that’s why I think the 2 of them together can pull off what nobody else could. I want them to do it. And if they do it, it will be because they valued this country and truth more than they valued the cushy, comfortable favor of the know-nothings who care nothing for truth.
Don't be absurd. You are making yourself a laughing-stock.
It has nothing to do with ideology and everything to so with the Constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN. There is ample evidence from the writings of people involved, Franklin, Washington, John Jay et al, to confirm the meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen and its origin. The multiple attempts to swing the argument to Blackstone’s definition which is based on English Citizens, is erroneous. The originator of the term was E. Vattel in The Law of Nations.
Attempts have been made here on this site to discard Vattel as “simply a philosopher.” That is exactly like saying Leonardo da Vinci was only an artist so he couldn’t possibly have invented the parachute....or designed fortifications since he wasn’t...blah, blah, blah.
Vattel was the PREEMINENT International Scholar in matters of Law at the time. The English unfortunately made a false translation of his phrase in the first English Translation published in London. The FRENCH Editions(as written by Vattel) available to members of the Constitutional Committee as well as other well known patriots of the time is exactly the translation understood and used in the Constitution.
Innumerable attempts have been made to destroy the 2nd Amendment and we are undergoing destruction of the first in matters both of religion and free speech at this time. If we do not HOLD FAST to the Constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN, we have plainly and simply lost the country.
Have you read the opinion? I get the impression that you have no real knowledge of the actual relevant legal authority. Why don’t you prove me wrong.
Why is everybody so afraid of there being an actual ruling on this?
Every judicial issue in the world has people who support this or that view, but in the end it doesn’t matter because all that is legally binding is what SCOTUS says.
The arguments over “My Constitutional expert is better than yours” are a waste of time. At the end of the day if so many experts agree with your analysis then you should be chomping at the bit, to get the case heard and get the vindication for what you said.
Why are people so scared of the process working like it’s supposed to? It wasn’t allowed to work in the case of Obama because the courts insisted it was nobody’s business except the person their all-knowing crystal ball says “would have” won if Obama wasn’t running.
The one who “would have won” the primary was Hillary, and she was allegedly silenced after 2 of the people she had planned to have fight Obama’s eligibility were killed within the 2 weeks before the DNC Convention, each shortly after agreeing to carry out the plan. Her surrogate in the courts, Phil Berg, abruptly had his case dismissed for lack of standing, and Hillary and Bill were allegedly finally silenced by threats on Chelsea’s life if they spoke out. And Bill had at least one interview where it was obvious that somebody had put the fear of God into him on that issue if nothing else.
The one who “would have won” the general was John McCain, who received a phone call from Obama about a week after the 9-11-08 run on the bank - and immediately called a press conference where he announced that he was suspending his campaign. That same day GWB suddenly gave a speech to the nation saying that Armageddon was upon us if we didn’t pass TARP (which wasn’t passed for several months after that without causing Armageddon, and when it was passed lined the pockets of sharia-compliant, heavily-democrat-funding banks). McCain attacked his own running-mate for daring to bring up any questions about Obama. She was silenced through McCain - a McCain who was ready to throw in the towel and not even fight any more immediately after that phone call from Obama.
The “conservative” media was silenced by threats from the owners - and that includes the exact “conservatives” who are really, really fighting the idea of this issue being settled in court. Is that what the owners/masters have told them to say, from the very beginning and continuing through now?
As I’ve said, if Trump and Cruz do this right, they could expose the 2008 coup. That should mean more to Mark Levin and others who were threatened, because they know full well that 2008 was a coup. It has to be addressed sometime, and time is running out.
If Dems have STANDING to make Cruz prove he is NBC, can we retroactively make Obama ineligible and remove everything he put into play?
______________________
Very slim chance. The timing would have to be before Obama leaves office and provided that a court would NOT consider the question moot. The only litigants possible, most likely, McCain and Romney.
I have read several opinions by Justice Story and I have his book, “A Familiar Explanation...” sitting on my bookshelf.
I have the greatest respect for Justice Story, and indeed for Vattel, although I have never been able to get a copy of his famous treatise for my collection.
Otherwise, I can’t answer your question with specificity since you don’t identify the opinion you are asking me if I have read.
Also, I fear that you have completely misunderstood my point regarding Vattel.
Here is what I said: “And Vattel, as interesting as he is, is not US law, and never has been.”
I never said that Vattel was not influential, or that Vattel was ignorant, stupid, or misguided. I merely said that he was not US law. And he is not, despite being quoted by Justice Story in support of a decision.
It seems to me that it ought not be necessary to point out that Courts don’t make laws, and quoting Vattel in a decision does not serve to do so either.
Levin is blowing hot air, he will never hold a gentleman’s conversation on the subject with me or even consider any of the Constitutional truth that would jeopardize his fake patriotism or all the profits he makes from his books that are filled with deceit, especially his latest, “The Liberty Amendments” which I will be shredding in upcoming articles at my website. Levin is so ingrained in the establishment and their usurpations, Levin couldn’t distinguish the truth if it was George Washington were standing in front of him upholding every letter of truth that my research has revealed.
And all those other names you list, they are but empty suits working for the establishment that gave us the 1st usurper of the presidential qualifications, one Chester Arthur, (Republican in name only) who upon taking the oath of office after the Constitutional & patriotic President Garfield was assassinated by insiders pretending to be Republicans, Arthur proceeded to order the US military men in uniform to immediately salute the British Crown. And do not think Arthur’s British citizenship was not a controversy at that time, it was and as it is today, the establishment covered ole’ Arthur’s arse too.
Thanks for posting that. I learned quite a bit. Wouldn’t have looked at the case on my own.
You clearly have not read, and are not familiar with, the opinion for a unanimous court which I reference. It does not mention Vattel, but it clearly states that in matters of citizenship the founders did not look to English common law, as many argue and as state courts have held in reference to the cases brought about the fraud in the Oval Office. The opinion makes it quite clear that English Common law, compared to what Vattel was writing about, was mere “municipal law.” Why insult me out of ignorance? It’s scarcely a convincing method of argument.
Just to be clear, when I wrote the comment you take issue with, I was referring to this quote by another poster:
“According to Vattel, Law of Nations, Must be born of TWO Citizens to be Natural Born and also born on the Soil of the U.S.”
Note that this refers to no decision of Justice Story, nor to any court decision at all. It merely refers to Vattel’s very influential “Law of Nations”.
Unless there has been an act of Congress incorporating this work in its entirely into our framework of laws, or even the Vattel position on the definition of “natural born” into our framework of laws, the “Law of Nations” is not US law, as I factually stated.
It’s probably worth stating here that I actually agree with the Vattel definition of an NBC. But, my opinion carries even less weight on the matter than Vattel’s. Meanwhile US law has moved on, and Vattel, myself, and others have been left behind as quaint relics of days gone by.
So that I am clear, Vattel is merely a reference work of legal philosophy, albeit a weighty one in my opinion. I hope this suffices to clarify my remark.
I do not insult you. My comment was not made in reference to any post of your or anyone else about a court decision. I don’t know why you keep bringing this up. When you say I am not familiar with the court decision you reference you are right. I do not know what you are talking about, but I certainly do not mean to insult you and I apologize if I have said anything that you take as an insult.
“End of argument.”
Totally wrong and contrary to the historical facts. Statutory authority for acquiring citizenship is a form of naturalization of a person born abroad to citizen parents, regardless of whatever bureaucratic requirements may or may not be involved. This was so before 1608 when the jurist Sir Edward Coke described the acquisition of English subjecthood (English nationality) at birth as a form of naturalization by datus or being made a subject at birth versus the opposite, natus or being born a subject at birth. The statutory law serves to “make” the child of the English father born abroad to be considered as a subject despite not actually being born a subject. The Constitution’s natural born citizen clause continued this legal practice of distinguishing between those persons who statutory law made to be considered as a citizen or a natural born citizen despite not actually being “natus” born a natural born citizen. The citizenship of persons born abroad with one or two U.S. citizen parents is still governed by the statutory naturalization laws of today, and be definition the Constitution has never been granted the Constitutional power to govern the acquisition of citizenship by a natural born citizen. In other words, a child born abroad with one or two citizen parents cannot be a natural born citizen, because the Constitution has never authorized the power to grant natural born citizenship. The constitution granted the Federal Government only the power to regulate a uniform system of naturalization. Since you cannot naturalize a natural born citizen, the statutes which authorize the making of a child born abroad a U.S. citizen can only fall under the authority to regulate naturalization of a person who is not a natural born citizen.
BS
Totally outlandish BS...
You really had to contort facts to come up with that shit.
I certainly understand all that, but frankly it was never part of my response to the original poster. So your abrupt insertion of some sort of accusation that I was crosswise with Justice Story caught me a bit flatfooted since Justice story had never been part of the discussion up till then.
So, if Story never held that Vattel’s work was US law, then I am not at odds with him in any way, am I?
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.