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 think I’ll send this link to Donald Trump on Twitter, and maybe he’ll apologize, for possibly the first time in his life. :)
“The bottom line in the case of Cruz, who was born in Canada in 1970, is that his father was an immigrant from Cuba and not a U.S. citizen at the time of young Cruz’s birth, but his mother was born and raised in the United States. The law in effect then, and now, made Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen at birth.”
“I did see a recent post stating that IA voters (a generalization, of course) do see through it. Then saw another one stating that voters at a Trump IA rally sided with Trump’s latest “concernsâ€...”
Hope the “deciding factor” amount of voters will see through it.
I’m not saying all, but so many of Trump supporters seem to be as blind as the Obama supporters. What a shame.
I probably should just leave this alone because every generation goes through these gyrations when someone points out to them that Congress only has the Constitutional authority to levy excise taxes.
That is of course, accurate, in the late 18th century, but that same constitution also assumes the federal government will only do those things enumerated and the rest of it belongs to the preview of the states, or what we call Federalism.
I found it amusing to read on that first case cited on that website that the writer sent a cover letter to the IRS where he cited the two IRS code locations to back up his request for all his tax withholding to be returned.
The problem is, both code cites are definition pages, not the US Code where the authority is. The definition pages have a disclaimer where you are warned not to assume the list of defined terms is complete.
I said to myself when I saw it, “boy!” “that guy is in for a eventual surprise.”
No, the Constitution did not originally grant authorities to tax income, nor did it grant authority for any number of things done today. The Congress usurped that authority from federalism under a myriad of other authorities, and so far the only branch that can or will question that authority will certainly not do so and has passed on it.
Once that occurs it becomes the body of US Law and is at present...legal.
So they do what they want and have been doing it since the first Congress. many, many hard workin people have questioned that authority and lost. many more, each subsequent generation will again do so with the same results.
In the end, they win and we lose every time..with some very minor technical exceptions where there is actual error in calculation or language and is subsequently corrected in the next rewrite.
That excise tax argument ship sailed a long time ago, and no, I am not ignorant but to you it may seem so.. But what you mistakenly believe is ignorance is actually a lack of stupidity based on years of experiences.
You can call it anything you like..
“It all deals with what The Donald wants. As you well know, some months ago he said that his lawyers checked it out & that Cruz had no problem. He’s only bringing it up now because Cruz threatens him in IA...”
Trump is so transparent, EXCEPT to Trump supporters who won’t take their blinders off. Even if someone is a Trump suporter, can’t they admit that THIS is WRONG?
Sun, what they are trying to argue is that back in 1795 when they rewrote the language of the Naturalization rules, they took out the term “natural born”.
By doing this some contend that the intent was to create a 3rd class of citizen. One who is foreign born, but granted citizenship by virtue of lineage, yet is not natural born and cannot become president or vice president.
The counter view is that there was never intent to have that effect.
This has been kicked around in recent decades because the term “Natural Born” was never defined by the US. So they use old English definitions from back in the time when the male was the only person of legal stature and the female was dependent.
So there we are.....
One can only hope that at least some of them come to their senses and realize that the Conservative position would be above all this nonsense. But the art of politics entails the art of creating public perceptions. Right or wrong, the created public perceptions are designed to win elections.
They are by nature to be impersonal, but far too many people personalize or internalize these created perceptions and they become a verbal weapon to be used against the supporters of the other guy.
This is why politics can be very messy...but I repeat my original point that the conservative position is to rise above it. It always has been and any Reganite would understand this.
“....But the art of politics entails the art of creating public perceptions. Right or wrong, the created public perceptions are designed to win elections. ....”
I understand that. But when Trump HIMSELF previously said that Sen. Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen, and now Trump is going on a witch hunt, it makes Trump look disingenuous, and worse, play very dirty politics, and his supporters also look disingenuous, and in some cases, not very bright.
Unless one is pedantic about the use of the word "defined," I think NBC is defined in the constitution. Article IV, sec. 2 defines citizens of the US as consisting of the citizens of the several states. A person born a citizen of one of the several states is born a citizen of the US, without further ado. The 14th amendment removed the ability of the states to restrict US citizenship by restricting state citizenship, and assigns citizenship to everybody born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction, and to everybody naturalized.
Cruz's circumstances of birth can be analyzed in a constitutional framework, without resort to any acts of Congress.
Blogs and radio talking heads claim Ted Cruz is eligible. SCOTUS says his type citizenship was via naturalization. He's not eligible. Does not matter how many blogs you post.
Are you talking about the judiciary that ignored our Founders intent including, but not limited to, ruling in favor of murdering over 50 million unborn children, ignoring LIFE, liberty and so forth?
So why wouldn’t the liberal ANTI-Constitution judiciary rule against this?
“The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just 12 months after our constitution became effective in 1789, undoubtedly reflects the understanding of “natural born citizen†in effect in that era, and 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, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”
excerpt http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/
You folks who want a SCOTUS ruling really ought to be careful what you wish for. Seriously.
Donald Trump has never proved he is a Natural Born Citizen, so he must not be one.
“Mark R. Levin â€@marklevinshow Jan 10
Birthers stuck on stupid http://fb.me/3IsT2pBqx “
(snip) https://twitter.com/marklevinshow
Yup.
“Is Canada a US territory?”
You don’t even know the answer to that question? Could I be wasting my time with you?
I think so.
“Refugees” gang raping in Europe; Obama wants to bring thousands, and thousands more of them here, EVEN AFTER ISIS said they would infiltrate with them, and Trump has us talking about a NONissue.
Sad.
George Washington said...naturalization was permitting FOREIGNERS not natural born citizens
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.