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 ...
So we are off to a really bad start, no matter how you cut it.
I’m glad you took the time to read all of that stuff. It was hard to compile the best out there because of all the “irrelevant” rabbit holes out there. I agree it was missing the pertinent dates and so much had repetitive information that may or may not be reliable. The best stuff may have been scrubbed. Sorry you found it a waste but I tried to give an indication of what’s out there.
The situation with Obama’s natural born citizen controversy has elements similar to “Ted” Cruz’s. In both cases, the mother’s citizenship gave automatic citizenship. However, in both cases, the status of “natural born citizen” have not been tested. People ask, why test “Ted” Cruz’s status of natural born citizen when Obama got a free ride and he had a strong case for illegibility. As far as I can see, we should drop it. However, the other side will not give a free ride to Mr. Cruz like they did for their guy, Obama. They may make quite a fight over the issue because they feel the other side tried to use the issue to defame their guy. They want revenge. That revenge may be an expensive fight if “Ted” does not beat them at the pass and get a judicial judgement in his favor.
Bushpilot, you have posted the relevant case law that would logically be used to defend Cruz should anyone decide to launch a legal claim.
Nice work....
I note that in Rogers v Bellei, SCOTUS upheld the decision.
There are some others, but those cited are relevant.
Actually, in the case of Obama, it was his birth certificate, or COB to be exact, that was at issue.
This affected his claim that he was born in Hawaii.
IMO, the natural born issue was not really relevant unless one could prove he was not born in Hawaii. If the Hawaii case had born fruit, then it might have gone to a natural born issue, but that would have failed as the mother was a US citizen. But they may have argued that the father did not spend enough time in the US...but I don’t really know..
I stand corrected on the Constitution listing requirements for members of Congress. I’m dealing with quite a bit in my life right now and it’s been a while since I was able to look at the Constitution. Thank you for setting me straight on that.
The statutes associated with the 209th Amendment allow Congress to decide whether the electoral votes are properly certified (that the states, which are in charge of elections, obeyed their own rules and properly sealed and certified the electoral votes) - not to decide what constitutes Constitutional eligibility or to decide whether a certain person is eligible, as is specifically mentioned regarding the legislative branch’s monitoring of their own members’ eligibility.
And Congress’ certification of the electoral vote is a sick joke. NJ allowed on the ballot a guy who wasn’t even a US citizen, and Congress did nothing to say that NJ had violated their own election laws. In Bush v Gore Congress supposedly took up the legality, but it was SCOTUS who decided that and Congress couldn’t do anything but obey the Supreme Court, which is specifically given the duty to decide cases where a state is a party.
If Trump, Grayson, Hillary, or whoever files a lawsuit it is not Congress who should interpret and apply the Constitution; it will be the courts - just like it was the courts which gave the legally-binding decision in Bush v Gore. And if the courts make a decision Congress just has to accept it, or be in contempt of court. If the Constitution gave that job to Congress, then SCOTUS and all the lower courts should have ruled that the case was not justiciable because it is a political issue. They didn’t on that, so it’s duplicitous for them to try it on the Obama eligibility cases. But then, Obama was “special” (threats by world Islamists do that to people; we can see that all over the place right now as Muslims have rape-fests in Europe and law enforcement, chancellors, and everybody blames the victims instead of the rapists.) Obama was “special” so the courts changed their tune from what they said in Bush v Gore. But since Cruz isn’t so “special” maybe they’ll go right back to how things were before the “special” foreign enemy combatant showed up.
The checks and balances were carefully planned by the Founders; the 20th amendment was not about messing with that balance so that the legislative branch had ANOTHER check over the executive and judicial branches. If Congress can interpret the Constitution and decide who gets to be POTUS that throws the whole balance out of whack. That was not the intention of the 20th Amendment, which was to deal with instances where the nation might be without a qualified POTUS.
Funny how the courts recognized that in Bush v Gore (that the 20th Amendment does NOT mean Congress interprets the Constitution in Presidential elections) when they DIDN’T say that the legality of the election was a “political issue” specifically assigned to Congress to handle.
The flakiness of the judiciary and the willingness of judges to flip according to political agendas makes Trump’s point for him. To put all our eggs in the basket of a judge of Grayson’s choosing, or Hillary’s choosing (remember the “Magnificent Eight”?), etc is suicidal.
I really don’t want to do battle with you either. Actually, the whole thing just makes me tired. This country wins the Darwin Award; I don’t know why I love her so much.
That was good. Chin up, other parts of your life (and the hereafter) are infinitely more important and more valuable. God bless you and what you do, prayers that your issues are resolved, good health, clarity and peace of mind.
You don’t listen to a word anybody says. I have said that if Trump and Cruz work together they can not only prevent the dems from being able to threaten or bribe a corrupt judge into getting rid of the only person left running against the dem candidate, AND expose the 2008 coup. And somehow you take that and claim that I’m out to get Cruz. Wowza, what a waste of time. I hate politics because it makes idiots out of people. All they can see is “My guy is better than your guy”
It’s all a big waste of time. Idiots will carry the day and then wonder why we get the crappy governance and lack of accountability that we’ve got. It’s not rocket science. We get this because people become cavemen whenever “politics” is in play.
Classy answer, and the same right back to you.
Yup.....
Therin lies the disagreement. This disagreement dated back pre-founding to English law of allegiances to the King.
Thankfully we don’t have a King and we did not adopt that language, although various legal analysts often bring it up.
This has much to do with original intent and there is a historical string of decisions that will confirm it and that the law of nations and such pre-constitutional law was not the intent.
I do but I find your reasoning lacking.
I know you probably didn't intend it, but man, that is the funniest thing I've read all day. I do need to work on my sense of humor, but still ....
Cboldt, it would help you to also read this commentary of one of our founding fathers: http://lonang.com/library/reference/tucker-blackstone-notes-reference/tuck-1e/
You’re making a mistake bringing up the Law of Nations.
Ahhh....There is the problem. You hate politics.
Like I told my youngest son when he said the same thing........
Politics is a game. A game that is played for big stakes, in addition to the future of the country. Winning and losing is all there is. Those who connive behind the scenes and make deals that say essentially, "if we can't win, that guy is not going to win either" will end up sucking wind and in debt after it's all over. So the game does have some rules..
Just remember that you are not a participant. You are a bystander or a pawn, depending on your ability to reason. If you want to participate you can run for office. But if you want to be a pawn, all you need to do today is participate in social media and spread the political propaganda to your facebook page, and your forums, e-mail, twitter....whatever.
Let me be clear, I am not a pawn. I have been there and done that in the past and I know it when I see it.
I am a bystander and I am currently engaging pawns to see if they understand the game. I find that most do not.
Much better to be a bystander and take in the entirety of what politics is all about. If you are a pawn, you can't see that. It's bad mojo if you accidently do. The campaign will intentionally keep you agitated so that this never happens. That is what they do.
Back in the day we did it with mailings, and phone calls, and now it is done through social media.
It's a form of flash mob.
It's a good thing that it only occurs every two years...
You need me to explain that to you?
Vatel, Vatel, Vatel, Vatel.........
We rejected most of that, and it cannot be re-injected.
It’s not gonna happen...
Cruz is a natural born...get over it.
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.