Donald Trump Ramps Up Attacks on Ted Cruzâ€™s Eligibility

OTTUMWA, Iowa â€” Donald J. Trump sharply escalated his rhetoric about Senator Ted Cruzâ€™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 â€œnatural-born citizen.â€™â€™

â€œYou canâ€™t have a person whoâ€™s running for office, even though Ted is very glib and he goes out and says â€˜Well, Iâ€™m a natural-born citizen,â€™ but the point is youâ€™re not,â€ 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 â€œnatural-born citizen,â€™â€™ a term that was not defined by the founders.

Mr. Trump, who began raising questions about Mr. Cruzâ€™s ability to be president earlier in the week, said on Saturday that Mr. Cruz would have to go to court to get a â€œdeclaratory judgmentâ€ about his eligibility â€œor you have a candidate who just cannot run.â€™â€™ (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 Obamaâ€™s citizenship.

On Saturday night, before the final stop on a six-day bus tour of Iowa, Mr. Cruz said: â€œUnder longstanding federal law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.â€

"Ted Cruz inherited a problem,
and no amount of suppression of the contentious debate is going to resolve it
anymore than Obamaâ€™s will be forgiven after he is out of office.
The question must be confronted and confronted with diligent and reasoning argument that cannot be avoided
no matter how convenient and desirable for other reasons it may be to attempt to do so."

BULL !
And a sidenote:

NOW THE LAW IS CLEAR,
and continuing with more legal action on the "natural born citizen" definition would only screw up the CLEAR DEFINITION that our FOUNDING FATHERS GAVE US.

1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

As Hans von Spakovsky wrote in his Commentary "An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":

... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view. In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated: All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning:namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that,subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States. Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for presidentbecause the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen. Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen. They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that“the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact thatits provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice. One of those precepts of British law wasthat children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,even outside the dominions of the British Empire, were “natural born” citizens of the Empire who owed their allegiance to the Crown. This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen. A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born“out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401. It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (g) includes: A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970; his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time. She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University. These facts show thatCruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.; That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state, and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico. The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice. The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts, was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father. My wife is not likely to run for president, but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Hans A. von Spakovsky is a a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department lawyer. He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”(Encounter 2012) and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside 2014). The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it , too ( even though it DOES NOT APPLY) ! United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790). Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,That any Alien being a free white person,who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the Stateswherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court thathe is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by lawto support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized,dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And 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, thatthe right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, thatno person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

I’m watching too, to see what Trump does. Somebody will surely tell him that Cruz can’t get a judicial declaration and there has to be an actual case leading to a decision. That would be the perfect time for Trump to show his bona fides by protecting the R’s from getting a candidate that the dems’ corruption could get disqualified. Would Trump keep the R’s from playing a game of chicken when so much is at stake? I hope so. I’ll be watching to see what he does.

I think it would be less of a risk to him if R’s acknowledged the legitimate danger and refused to demonize him for bringing it up. That’s exactly how Obama got into office: the threatened media ridiculed as “conspiracy mongers” anybody who actually paid attention to what Obama was saying, his history, his connections, the forgeries, etc. What I’m saying is let’s not do that again.

At the beginning of this year I had no hope for America. None. Jeb was inevitable because conservatives were going to divide their vote like they did to give us Romney, and it would be a choice between Hillary and Hillary Lite. Then these 2 men came forward and refused to battle each other until the threat of Jeb was neutralized. They were both very protective of America, giving her a real alternative to the corrupt status quo. They were smarter than their own followers.

And I watched how both guys worked to neutralize the effect of a treasonous media. Brilliant!

I think both these guys know what we’re up against, and I think we should give them credit for the minefield they’ve navigated so well, so far. PLEASE let’s don’t fall for the dem/media/GOPe “divide and conquer the conservatives” Lucy with the football game plan. They know that our own party spirit is the biggest threat this nation faces, at a time when we have a real chance to expose the 2008 coup and get back the rule of law.

We love America. Let’s save her. Let’s stop making it so hard for both/either of these guys to do what is necessary to save her.

“Your argument, based on English and French writers, both of whom were quoted during our founding as in the Law Of Nations, by Vatel, only serve as influences to the Founders, not as the law of the land.”

The American colonists used the fundamental documents, such as the Magna Carta, to provide the foundation for their colonial governments beginning with the Roanoke, Jamestown, Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, and Maryland colonies, among others. Due to the expense, rarity, and problems of obtaining legal books and manuscripts, the American colonists were mor often than not on their own to develop their own statutory law and American common law mostly in isolation from similar developments in England, Scotland, and Continental Europe. As the proprietary owners of the colonies gave way to the Royal Colonial administrations, the amount of English legal documents and their influence in the colonial governments increased to bring the colonial governments more under the influence of some English legal doctrines, but remained stubbornly different in many others. The former Dutch colony of New Amsterdam was particularly influential among many of the American colonies with respect to resisting the English encroachments upon the previous Dutch practices of giving women more legal identity and rights. So, when it came time to contemplate a new Republic founded upon the principles of natural law being experimented with by the Dutch Republics and the legal scholars in Continental Europe, the American Founding Fathers ended the English common law as the basis for the U.S. Government in favor of the new natural law basis, yet they continued and borrowed from the past and future English common law wheneve it wa found to be suitable to do so without necessarily upsetting the natural law basis of the Republic. The continuation of the English, French, Spanish. Roman, and assorted other legal traditions are still evident in the thousands of legal terms found in Black’s Law Dictionary used as a standard legal reference in the U.S. courts of law. So, the fact that the 16th and 17th Century legal definitions were incorporated into the usages of naturalization of citizens in the U.S. laws is unremarkable.

“If we were to take your argument as 100% valid and correct, then we would need a SCOTUS decision or a written statute enacted into law that creates a third class of citizenship, where one is not natural born, not naturalized, but is a citizen of birth only, not requiring naturalization.”

That is an entirely false conclusion, because that is already how it has been done by the United States since day one and by the American colonial governments before that. It is simply inherent in the development of naturalization and denizens versus the statutory mass naturalization of the children of citizens born abroad. The U.S. Code was revised by repealing earlier versions of these nationality laws that made the differences clearer in favor of what we have currently that deliberately tries to muddle the issue. Still, the sections I quoted elsewhere from the State Department’s Consular manuals demonstrates the differences are distinctly represented in them and the Naturalization manual does say the automatic conferring of U.S. citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad is another form of naturalization. So, no additional legislation is necessary to create was has always and is already here.

“It follows then that Ted Cruz would be of this new category of citizenship as would numerous others, including one or two presidents, if I recall correctly.”

Ted Cruz enjoys U.S. citizenship only because a manmade statutory law made him a U.S. citizen at birth if and when Ted Cruz claimed that right to U.S. Citizenship after birth in accordance with the U.S. naturalization law which the Constitution included as the power to institute a uniform system of naturalization. Given the fact that the Constitution did not grant the U.S. Federal government the power to confer U.S. citizenship upon natural born U.S. citizens, because you cannot naturalize someone who is already a natural born citizen. If Ted Cruz had been born in similar circumstances before 1934, he would not have become a U.S. citizen without naturalizing as an alien citizen. If Ted Cruz was actually a natural born citizen today, he would also have been a natural born citizen before 1934 as well.

“But there is not a third category.....is there?”

Yes, the acquisition of citizenship by a person born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents has always been treated as one of the two types of naturalization, although there has been a recent trend in the last 60 years or more to blur the actual functional distinction in the verbiage.

“For your argument to have merit, there must be.”

When you attempt to categorize like that and follow the traditions back into the history of England, you run into the problem of the citizenship doctrines changing. When William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy and King of England brought with him the feudal legal order, nationality (encompassing subjects and citizens) was determined by the doctrine of jus soli. Before too long this was found to be too inconvenient with so many prominent Englishmen fighting and living in France with their families and children being born in France. The children were unable to inherit their English estates in too many instances due o their being ruled as aliens to the Kingdom of England, despite their English fathers. Consequently, the naturalization Act of 1541 was enacted to use the legal doctrine of jus sanguinis in a limited application to resolve the inheritance dilemma. Due to the formalities of letters patent from the crown, naturalization by Parliament for aliens, and a new third method for the children of Englishmen born abroad. These categories were maintained more or less down through the centuries in one form or another. a key difference between the American form and the British form was due to the British crown claiming the allegiance of all children born under the Crown’s allegiance, whether or not their parents were aliens. The American experience varied considerably from that until the 14th Amendment and related Supreme court decisions arguably misinterpreted and misapplied legal precedent a argued by the minority opinions of the court decisions described.

“I suspect we will see this argument made and set aside for many more generations, should we actually survive the present one.”

Imagine what Trump and his brash approach could do with the 14th Amendment if it were possible to get a cooperative Republican supermajority willing and capable of impeaching some SCOTUS justices.

“I have been alive long enough to see it made many times and usually if not entirely by the left wingers against conservatives. Last made against Romney, if I recall.”

I got drawn into studying the natural born eligibility issue when I was required to research and write a paper about it for Goldwater’s election campaign cycle. We’ve had Chester Arthur, Hughes, Goldwater (who was eligible), Romney Sr., Obama, Romney Jr., Santorum, Jindal, Rubio, Cruz, and others who I don’t recall at the moment.

“I find that Trumps use of this argument is telling, and it does not bode well for a Trump presidency that is expected by his supporters to save this country from the left.”

The DNC has been lining up to pounce on Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, or Santorum if any one of them won the Republican primary. I know this from the comments from a number of Democrat Precinct chairmen and elected Democrats I’ve argued around with in person. Trump’s confrontation of the obvious eligibility problem was necessarily inevitable, so his timing before the primary election is more beneficial to the conservative cause than letting the DNC benefit from neglecting the issue until after the primary.

“â€œVery troublingâ€, as trump has said...so I take his own words and throw them back in his face...”

That’s too bad, because anyone no matter how supposedly noble they are who has an eligibility issue is a potential or probable cause of defeat for the GOP and the conservative cause.

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.