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 ...
I understand your logic and have been arguing in support of your POV for years. Unfortunately, I have concluded that the battle is well and truly lost.
At this point resistance is futile.
Trump keeps it up and I won’t vote for him if he is the nominee!!! I’ll stay home!!!
“BS”
“Totally outlandish BS...”
Abusive fallacy – a subtype of “ad hominem” when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.
Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.[
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.
“You really had to contort facts to come up with that shit.”
See above.
The definitions of naturalization and usage of datus and natus is a fact found in Coke, Edward, Sir. Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke: Volume I. 1608. p. 206.
You may now apologize for the scatological insult and lie.
but he did hold that the type of law which Vattel wrote about was what was followed by the Framers in matters of citizenship.
Thanks for your post, but I am a bit uncertain as to your intent in posting this. If you want to show that Vattel was (and perhaps remains) an influential and even in some cases a determinative reference, how can I disagree?
“I’m only saying this, and I speak will of Ted, I’am only saying that Ted has to get this problem solved. Because if he’s running against a democrat and they bring a lawsuit, He’s got a helluva thing over his head” Trump said.
The most recent law of all does not apply. The Constitution cannot be changed on the whim of a few politicians temporarily in the majority in congress. There is a very long, drawn out affair which is required called an Article V Convention.
“Unfortunately, I have concluded that the battle is well and truly lost. At this point resistance is futile.”
Grandmother always reminded us “can’t never did.” Persistence sometimes pays off, and only the persistent win, because those who quit are already for most intents and purposes lost and almost as good as dead. This was also George Patton’s point of view. We are in our current dilemma because too many people quit the cause of protecting and defending the Constitution and our free society begun by a hopeful group of Founding Fathers and Founding Mothers bearing the burdens at home. It waste valuable time, it is aggravating, and it is far better than fighting and dying in muddy trenches, cold stratospheric air, and beneath the waves of the sea for something far less worthy in the service of a totalitarian regime.
There is no about about that whatsoever. I have argued myself hoarse in support of Vattel over the years.
But in 2016, that horse has been pronounced well and truly dead, and no amount of beating will revive her. In our era, natural born citizenship will be defined by statute in any way the legislature chooses.
There is no about about that whatsoever. I have argued myself hoarse in support of Vattel over the years.
But in 2016, that horse has been pronounced well and truly dead, and no amount of beating will revive her. In our era, natural born citizenship will be defined by statute in any way the legislature chooses.
This crap was settled during the course of the 1st US Congress.
English law and it’s jurists or commentators has nothing to offer to the argument in any way, shape or form.
What you are arguing is in essence due to a time when citizenship was determined by the States. Citizenship had nothing to do at the time with the term natural born but if it were in effect, Cruz would be a citizen of Delaware.
Since it has not bearing on the argument, you need to refer to US statute and several SCOTUS cases affirming who is natural born.
Best described here, in the Harvard Law review by Legal scholars Paul Clement and Neal Katyal.
” No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.†The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .†The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress…
While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen†within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen†even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
“
Why don’t you try actually reading the opinions I mention. Somehow I find Story and Marshall, in their opinions, quite weighty. With that said, at this point the matter remains unresolved by a high court opinion.
University of Virginia, Professor James Gilmore in is Lecture on Vattel’s Law of Nations wrote Vattel’s citizenship definition is in the Constitution.
Why don’t you try actually reading the opinions I mention. Somehow I find Story and Marshall, in their opinions, quite weighty. With that said, at this point the matter remains unresolved by a high court opinion.
“In our era, natural born citizenship will be defined by statute in any way the legislature chooses.”
It won’t after we get together, elect ourselves into office, impeach the bastards, prosecute more than a few of them, and see to it they spend he rest of their natural lives in prison.
It simply didn't matter until Cruz actually could win a state nomination, simple as that. I'm sorry Trump brought this up for discussion but do you really think that it would not have come up in the General Election?
True only to the British Citizen.
Not the US...
We can carry this on until infinity but your argument will always fall flat as it has no substance or standing.
So apologies are not going to occur, and to take it a football field further, (since I am watching the games today) This attack by trump has not only infuriated me, it may well have cost him if he happens to win the nomination.
I assume that is also a insult to you so carry on!
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.