Donald Trump Ramps Up Attacks on Ted Cruz’s Eligibility

NY Times ^ | 1/9/16 | Trip Gabriel and Matt Flegenheimer

[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.”

[Cboldt]

Thanks for the link. I’ve read Tucker on Blackstone before. I used to waste time with old law books in the law library stacks, and ran into Blackstone, Tucker, and lots of Olde England law as a result. I won’t claim a working familiarity, but was exposed to the materials as “self study entertainment” a couple decades ago.

[Cboldt]

-- You need me to explain that to you? --

No, I don't have any need of that. If you think I mistake your take, and that matters to you, I won't pass on reading your explanation.

[bushpilot2]

Ted Cruz presented a Canadian birth certificate claiming the foreign document proves his eligibility and citizenship.

He’s the smartest guy on the planet?

[butterdezillion]

Human beings are the most pathetic creatures on earth.

[jonrick46]

It is interesting to note that Breitbart just issued a breaking story that said the the 2008 Hilary for President Campaign started the Birther Movement against Obama:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/

This tells me that she won’t hesitate in doing it again against Cruz.

[Cold Heat]

Well you were laughing....lol

Within that case law there were at least two relevant cases, one where SCOTUS reviewed it and did nothing..

This is a complicated issue because there have always been two schools of thought on it. As time progressed, and we entered and exited the age of enlightenment, and then the progressive era, much of the basis for the old English interpretations was destroyed. One of the greatest changes was the elevation of women to the same legal status as men, and the dissolution of class based politics. this ripped the guts out of the old and ushered in the new.

In those case cites was also the decision that congress had the power to determine eligibility. This made possible the statutes under which Ted Cruz receives the citizenship of his mother and thus was not naturalized but was natural born.

That is the way it stands today and his birthdate placed him into the period where he is granted the benefit of this statute.

Smart minds can disagree, but the disagreement had better be damned good and better than any previous argument to overturn current law. Even if that were the case, (just for fun) I doubt it would be retroactive.

So that’s how I see it. And furthermore, I don’t think that the original intent was to prohibit inherited citizenship of the parents/parent home country . I think it was only to prevent foreign interferences in what was then a newly create, untested government.

[bushpilot2]

Says the guy who claimed Rogers v Bellei helps Ted Cruz.

SCOTUS hasn’t rejected Vattel’s Law of Nations.

[Cold Heat]

That is a very old story. In fact I recall when it happened as a result of the rift created between Obama and Bill Clinton over some remarks the Obama campaign determined were racist. So they pulled the race card for the first time, and the birther movement was born.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

[patlin]

After reading this I am not going to take a lot of stock in Binney’s conclusion for the simple fact that Binney is applying feudal law which was NOT the common law of citizenship adopted by the framers of our Constitution.

Second, the entire thing is applying British Law from British citizenship controversies. Binney is misinterpreting & thus he is misapplying the Immigration & Naturalization Act of 1802. Binney holds that a child born to an alien father in America is citizen and we know that that is feudal doctrine. Citizenship is of election, it is not conferred upon one at birth other than by the tacit consent of the citizen parents.

Virginia, a colony with the deepest ties to Great Britain finalized their change in 1779 under the governorship of Thomas Jefferson.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

And also, had what Binney was implying been the case, Congress would have addressed it immediately and the fact that they didn’t proves that what was in the 1790 Act in regards to those born abroad of citizen parents, that still applied. All the 1802 Act did was remove the term ‘natural born’, it did not repeal the law of nature as applied by Virginia because at that time, naturalization, although the laws were established by Congress, it was the states who implemented them and so for Binney’s interpretation of the 1802 Act to be true, then Virginia’s citizenship laws were unconstitutional and thus there would be case law to the effect and there simply is not.

And third, Binney is hinging everything on Kent’s commentaries and the one thing about James Kent, he held a lot of fondness for British law, law that had long since been discarded, but because of his political influence, he is still the one the rogue judges run to in support of their fictional living constitution as that is what the constitution of the Brits is, a living one that changes with every whim of the present ruling elite. One could say that America is more British today than she was at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

No, there was no defect in US citizenship laws and there is none to this day. The only defect is in the men & women who misinterpret and subsequently misapply the law as Binney did.

[Cold Heat]

I addressed this in another post...

[Godebert]

Mother born in USA. US citizen living somewhere else while retaining citizenship having a child, child is US citizen. Non issue.

Child is a citizen by statutory law, but not a natural born Citizen.

[Cold Heat]

The only defect is in the men & women who misinterpret and subsequently misapply the law as Binney did.

Yup...there is a lot of that going around to this day..

[Cold Heat]

Just for the heck of it....

Cruz’s mother did not emigrate to Canada. There was no application made....ever.

Therefore, Ted was a automatic US citizen based on his mother’s US citizenship.

How then is it possible for Vattel or Blackburn or any other opinion to vacate that which occurred?

[Cboldt]

-- Within that case law there were at least two relevant cases, one where SCOTUS reviewed it and did nothing... --

They necessarily did something, either upholding the decision below, or sending the case back with a rule, or reversing. Or, sometimes, they look at a case and conclude they are not going to render a ruling, based on lack of jurisdiction (Marbury v. Madison being an example), or standing, or justicability.

Saying they did nothing is highly ambiguous, so i don't know what you mean, or what significance you attach to that disposition.

-- In those case cites was also the decision that congress had the power to determine eligibility. --

Eligibility for citizenship, yes. But I fear you are assuming the conclusion and conflating eligibility for citizenship with eligibility for the presidency.

-- This made possible the statutes under which Ted Cruz receives the citizenship of his mother and thus was not naturalized but was natural born. --

The discussion says that if a person's citizenship depends on a statute, they are naturalized.

-- I don't think that the original intent was to prohibit inherited citizenship of the parents/parent home country . I think it was only to prevent foreign interferences in what was then a newly create, untested government. --

I don't believe there is any disagreement that some naturalized citizens are more American at heart than many NBCs. There has been a persistent force, over a long period of time, to allow any citizen to hold the office of president. I think that is unwise, and that's my two cents.

[Cold Heat]

They upheld....I meant that they did not change it.

[jonrick46]

After reading those long pages about the status of citizenship, you must realize that there are differences between the terms, Natural Born Citizen, Citizen, and Naturalized Citizen. For a easy to read explanation, go here:

http://www.waxahachietx.com/article/20160111/NEWS/160119907

After you have read the above explanation, come back and tell me what category does Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz belong, who was born in December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada?

[patlin]

Are you implying that because Bellei, born to an Italian father and an American mother in Italy has any bearing on the definition of a natural born citizen?

Bellei’s citizenship WHOLLY relies upon the naturalization laws as his father was not an American citizen and Bellei, being born in the country of his father’s citizenship, that citizenship IS subject to revocation because Bellei did NOT comply with US law, the residency requirement upon his coming of the age of consent and the selective service requirements. The court made its determination based upon feudal law of perpetual allegiance, the only problem with that, it is the State that determines when that allegiance has been broken and yet they do not even uphold that doctrine of their non-existent laws they apply.

[Godebert]

There is no question that Ted was born a statutory "Citizen" by virtue of his American Citizen mother. That is not in dispute. The debate is regarding wether he qualifies as a "natural born Citizen" as required by Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 in the United States Constitution. Only natural law defines a natural born Citizen.

[Cboldt]

-- Smart minds can disagree, but the disagreement had better be damned good and better than any previous argument to overturn current law. Even if that were the case, (just for fun) I doubt it would be retroactive. --

I'm not saying the law is unconstitutional, it is a rule of naturalization, and Congress can naturalize all of North Korea if it wants to. That power is plenary.

I'm not saying the current law should be overturned. I don't have a problem with passing citizenship to children born abroad, of a citizen.

What the Rogers v. Bellei case says is that citizenship that depends on a statute is naturalization, even if there is no naturalization proceeding. With "naturalized" and "natural born" being mutually exclusive, a person whose citizenship depends on a statute is not natural born, even if that person does not go through a naturalization procedure.

Cruz definitely does not want to use this case to support a finding that he is a natural born citizen. It's a powerful case for the opposing view. The only caveat I'd add is that it's powerful if applied in an intellectually honest way. I've watched courts apply statutes and case law in manifestly dishonest ways (SCOFLA and the Bush ballot counting fiasco), and can point to dishonest cherry-picking of the Presser case so as to enable states to perpetrate unconstitutional gun restrictions.