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 ...
And I would add that if both Trump and Cruz’s lawyers cede the fact that Obama was born outside the US - as evidenced by the HI state registrar’s failure to verify the birth facts submitted for verification by AZ SOS Ken Bennett - the only way the judge could deal with that would be to order the records unsealed that would disprove what both men were accepting.
That is why they need to work together, for the good of the country. They are the ones who can do this. They need to do this.
I am not a lawyer, as I’ve said before, but I REALLY hope both these men are working with lawyers who know how to make this work. The stage is being set perfectly. Trump is the only one who can do this and he’s already given a really good reason to do it, since Grayson has already said he will sue if Cruz is the R candidate.
I have to skirt the hypothetical issue because you’ve become tiresome & I don’t want to get caught up in the weeds of your blue-sky theories.
It’s not a “blue sky theory”. Grayson has already said he will sue. The only thing that would stop him is if Cruz doesn’t win the nomination. Is that your plan?
First link: Absolutely nothing new or determinative. A waste of time.
Second link:Absolutely nothing new or determanitive.
Third link: I’ve seen this “timeline” many times already. The only problem with it is that it lacks key dates. It is inexcusably missing Ted Cruz’s birth date, for example: it is December 22, 1970, but you would not learn this from the “timeline”. Also missing: any dates or information on when either Rafael Cruz or Eleanor Cruz became Canadian citizens. Without this key information the “timeline” is worthless.
Fourth link: A complete crock, worthless inflammatory and reckless speculation.
Fifth link: Completely irrelevant and non-determinative rambling and speculation as well as dragging in the worthless and incomplete “timeline”.
I was really hoping you had something. It is disappointing that all you have is the same third-hand, incomplete, irrelevant, trivial and worthless crap that everyone else is so recklessly tossing around. Nothing but junk.
The Conservative Treehouse ought to be ashamed for peddling this trash. I used to respect them but they have gone into the tank for Trump.
What did I say: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3382234/posts
The FBI is leaking information that Hillary is in deep doo-doo. Just in time for primary season.
The democrats always play for keeps. There are few characteristics I’d want our people to emulate in them, but they are shrewd and earnest. When will conservatives start playing for keeps?
“You don’t know that he’s being dishonest or ineligible by distorting.”
Thanks, I expected you to say that. Of course I know he is being dishonest and ineligible. I can take him at his word that he is and/or believes he is a Constitutional scholar. Any Constitutional scholar and most people who can read that are not Constitutional scholars can read and see that Ted Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship by the authority of the statutory law in the U.S. Code Title 8 Aliens and Nationality; Chapter 12 Immigration and Nationality; Subchapter III Nationality and Naturalization; Part 1: Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization; Section 1401: Nationals and Citizens at Birth; The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:.... a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who was a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. Ted Cruz claims to be a natural born citizen. Natural born citizens are born with U.S. citizenship without the need for a statutory law to confer U.S. citizenship on the person. The statutory law does no confer natural born citizenship upon a person, because the Constitution did not give the Congress the power to do so. The Constitution gave Congress only the power to naturalize aliens into U.S. citizens through the power to establish a uniform Rule for naturalization of aliens into citizens and nationals. Ted Cruz was born as an alien with the right to claim U.S. citizenship at birth at the discretion of his parents and himself after birth through the Rules for Naturalization granted to Congress by the Constitution. Ted Cruz being the brilliant Constitutional scholar must either know he is ineligible due to his statutory means of acquiring U.S. citizenship or else he must be incompetent as a Constitutional scholar. In either case, Ted Cruz acquired his U.S. citizenship using a statutory law for naturalization at birth of children born abroad with an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother that makes it impossible for him to be a natural born citizen.
“Neither are you.”
Of course not, because I said I wasn’t. However I do know that Canadian law required Rafael Cruz and/or Eleanor Cruz to be Permanent Canadian Residents before Ted Cruz could acquire Canadian citizenship at birth. We know Ted Cruz acquired Canadian citizenship at birth, so we also know the parents had to be Canadian citizens or Canadian Permanent Residents on the path to Canadian citizenship. We also know Rafael did acquire Canadian citizenship shortly after Ted Cruz was born, so that tells us Rafael Cruz had to have been a Canadian Permanent Resident on the path to Canadian citizenship when Ted Cruz was born. Typically a husband will not be approved as a Canadian Permanent Resident or Canadian citizenship unless the wife does so also, so there is strong reason to suspect she acquired Canadian citizenship at the same time Rafael Crus acquired his Canadian citizenship.
“Neither do you.”
See the above evidence which gives me a strong evidentiary reason to suspect she could have and probably did so at the same time as her husband, Rafael Cruz.
“I trust Cruz. He would not be running if he was ineligible.”
That just demonstrates wishful thinking in the face of overwhelming evidence and proof to the contrary. If you want to argue otherwise, then try to explain how Ted Cruz can be a natural born citizen by the authority of the naturalization Act that makes aliens into what is to be considered as citizens not natural born.
Thank you for a very clear explanation.
Whiskey, I said in my original reply to another poster that began this exchange that “I am probably waiting my time ....but”.
So it appears.
To begin with you are making a argument with me that I concur with at it’s root and that is the plain fact that when the Constitution was written, there was already a problem with interpretation of the term “natural born”. It shows up occasionally as we both know, and that is the reason it has gone to court a few times, adding to the confusion so that a statute was eventually written to clarify.
You make a good original intent argument but that argument has been made before, as I indicated. Should SCOTUS take this up again, (thus far they refuse to) I can only assume this same argument will be made once again to make the original intent case against the counter argument proving over 200 years of implementation and precedent.
The odds say, that the Vatel argument will lose once again and precedent will carry the day, because like a instant replay in football, if there is insufficient reason to change a call, the call made on the field will stand.
IMO, the only sufficient reason to change this call would be the original fear of foreign influences on the US government.
Until then, you will take your road and I will take mine.
To have standing to bring a eligibility suit regarding Ted Cruz, the case would need to be ripe, or in this case damage would need to be done to the plaintiff.
Not a lawyer, but to me that would require that Cruz be elected POTUS.
I fully expect that numerous Democrats will bring cases should that occur, and Trump would not be required to participate. But he could enjoin the suit. I expect he would.
The sad thing is....many of us Cruz supporters were OK with the possibility that after the primary we might be in a situation where we might need to vote for Trump in the general.
After this brouhaha, I can only speak for myself, but I will be withholding judgment on that until I enter the booth on election day.
Particularized harm is done to an eligible candidate if delegates are won by an ineligible candidate. The case would be ripe as soon as Cruz win delegates.
You'll be waiting and disappointed at the end, because no court is going to decide it.
What matters is what each individual voter believes. If the voters elect an unqualified candidate, it is up to Congress to deal with it - assuming Congress finds the president-elect to be unqualified, and all signs are that the Congress would find any citizen, even a naturalized one, to be qualified. Once the people have selected a president-elect, it would takes big balls to say "no.".
The political parties have a stake too, and they can decide qualifications. If the party's electors present an unqualified candidate, the party risks an adverse finding when Congress counts the electoral votes.
Petition the GOP to issue a finding that Cruz is NBC. I think that's the best way to advance the argument on a national level.
Not really......no.....what is the harm and how is that mitigated.
Preliminary voting or primaries, have never, to my knowledge formed the basis for law suit with the exception of voter fraud. Subsequently that issue was found to lack standing..so.....
For example, suit’s filed against the fed election committee, over Obama, were shelved until he took office and then they had standing. If I recall correctly.
The suit has to show damage and that damage does not occur in a eligibility case until the plaintiff can point to being hurt, damaged, permanently so by a constitutional or statutory violation.
This bring us back to the statute.
The statute says Cruz is eligible.
If you are convinced that the US statute is unconstitutional, then you must wait to be damaged by it to become the plaintiff. That damage has to be explained, and shown to be something that is serious enough to overturn a US statute.
A few delegates in a still contested election, is not easily translated into damages. IMO....but I am not a legal beagle....
Then what are they?
Of course Cruz qualifies. That's exactly what Trump wanted to be settled as quickly as possible. If a question about eligibility existed as convention dates got closer, it would be more difficult for Trump to bring him in as VP on the ticket.
The U.S. didn't even exist when Vattel wrote his book.
He is the candidate the dems and GOPe fear.
They fear him because he knows the Constitution. He deeply understands the principles and traditions that made this a great nation. He has fought and won many times, against those who seek to destroy them.
He stands in the way of their (dems, GOPe) plans to dismantle and bring us down.
The dems probally will try something about this non-issue birtherism because they know that there are many LIV's who scare easily-but Cruz can handle it.
It's not like the democrats won't attack him over something anyway. So its getting it out in the open early I suppose.
While this may be an example of Trump playing hard ball trying to win the GOP primary- I am not impressed.
I will continue to support my candidate Ted Cruz: financially, and by volunteering to help his campaign, and also spiritually through daily prayer, for him to be our next president in accordance with God's will.
You are free to support your candidate of choice as well.
I “USED” to hold Levin in high esteem until I realized that he is just a human being susceptible to human error and if he would just shed his arrogant ego so to approach this subject in a rational & unbiased manner, I would again hold respect for the man, however, I would never again “esteem” him as I did in the past. Until Levin shows himself to be of the patriotic type that our founding father’s were, setting aside political biases so to uphold the rule of law thereby promoting justice over tyranny, until then Levin deserves no respect because he for now he simply is but a propaganda mouthpiece for a certain sect of the political establishment.
Thanks for doing the leg work for me!
The U.S. didn’t even exist when Vattel wrote his book.
...........................................................
And what does that have to do with the price of eggs? The U.S. didn’t exist when the Bible was written either, but the Founding Fathers followed its teachings.
The Law of Nations was the outstanding Legal Reference of its day and is still referenced in case after case in this country. It is taught, it is referenced, and it is the deciding factor in many Supreme Court Cases. The wording for Native Born Citizen was suggested by the man who was to become the first Supreme court Justice, John Jay who wrote a letter to George Washington, then Chair of the Constitution Committee suggesting it. George Washington borrowed a Law of Nations from the Library in New York and never returned it when he was president.
He never rescinded his Canadian citizenship until he was a SITTING SENATOR in the US Senate! What else is he hiding?
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.