Posted on 01/11/2016 8:53:37 AM PST by VinL
Donald Trump continues to raise the issue of Sen.Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) American citizenship.
In a Fox News Sunday interview (below), Trump argued that the Canadian-born senator must "get this problem solved" before potentially running against a Democrat in the fall and facing a lawsuit.
"Does 'natural-born' mean born to the land, meaning born on the land? In that case, he's not. But nobody knows what it means because it hasn't been adjudicated and it hasn't gone to the Supreme Court," said Trump.
On America's Newsroom this morning, Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that Cruz's American citizenship is "well-settled and established" under a law that goes back 100 years.
Napolitano said Cruz's citizenship cannot be questioned, since his mother was an American citizen when he was born.
"A human being born in another country with at least one parent who is an American citizen, who lived in the United States for at least one year during the parent's life before the birth, is an American citizen. That is exactly Ted Cruz's situation. ... [He] is a natural-born American citizen," Napolitano explained.
He agreed with Martha MacCallum that the reason for bringing this up is "political," not legal, since many voters may not know the law.
Napolitano said Cruz could benefit from getting this cleared up now, rather than later. But he noted that Trump is correct that the Supreme Court has never reviewed the law "because the issue has never come up."
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.foxnews.com ...
See S.2128 - 108th Congress: Natural Born Citizen Act
If this is what you mean by "settled," I'd hate to see an unsettled point of law.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, as we take time to celebrate President's Day and remember the contributions of two of our greatest leaders George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, I rise along with my colleagues Senator Landrieu and Senator Inhofe to introduce legislation that will guarantee children born to and adopted by American citizens the opportunity to become this country's next great president. The purpose of this bill is to define the term "natural born Citizen" as used in Article II of the Constitution to include any person born in the United States, any person born outside the United States to citizen parents, and any foreign-born child adopted by citizen parents.Congressional Record: Page S1597, 108th Congress, 2nd Session, February 25, 2004For many decades legal scholars have debated the meaning of the term "natural born Citizen." There are many law review articles that examine the issue from every angle and come to several different conclusions. Some scholars, such as Pinkney G. McElwee in his article entitled Natural Born Citizen and Isidor Blum's article published in the New York Law School Journal, conclude that the term "natural born" is synonymous with "native born." Others, such as Charles Gordon in the Maryland Law Review and Warren Freedman in the Cornell Law Quarterly, decide that the definition of "natural born" includes all people who are citizens at birth. And these scholars disagree as to who is a citizen at birth.
The issue came to the public's attention when George Romney was seeking the Republican nomination for President in 1968. He was born of American missionary parents in Mexico. Some questioned his eligibility to be President under the Constitutional requirement that a President be a "natural born citizen." The issue was never decided since Mr. Romney did not become the Republican nominee. Although at least two Federal court decisions have suggested what the term "natural born citizen" means, the issue has never been squarely resolved by a court.
Today the question remains unanswered. This bill presents us with an historic opportunity. In this bill, we have the opportunity to end the uncertainty surrounding the qualifications for the presidency, and provide a fair and equal chance to children of American citizens to pursue their dreams.
There is obviously a need for clarification. ...
This bill suggests that Congress will find it has the power to define NBC, which I find plausible but unconsitutional. Wouldn't be the first or only unconsitutional law put into force.
“Read the article please.”
I have read it and stand by my earlier comment!
Me thinks you missed the point of my comment, but that’s OK.
He was a Superior Court judge. now a professor of constitutional law, and written several books on the constitution. Doesn’t necessarily make him right, but he has the bone fides to speak as an authority.
He needs some new material.
______________
I have knocked many doors and spoken to many people who go to the polls on limited info. Trump wants to make sure that everyone gets his message. Many voters only watch sound bites or just as likely, read headlines. Free Republic is a pretty dedicated group of observers unlike most voters.
Yes, it’s settled. Cruz WAS a citizen at BIRTH. He was not however, born a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
I got your point. My point is that, even if the Dems try to press it, it won’t be an issue during the general election, so what’s the point of Trump pressing it now?
And that is my point. As of yet, from last night through this morning, no supporter of Sen. Cruz can answer the question, or perhaps they are unwilling to answer it, to wit: Queen Noor of Jordan has admitted that she never formally renounced her American citizenship. She gave birth to princelings. Did she confer NBC to this Arab Princes? According to some of the logic on this board, she did confer NBC. So that means, once those princes fulfill their residency requirements, they are very much eligible to run for US President because they are Natural Born Citizens of the United States.
If the supporters of Sen. Cruz wish to avoid the above question, then I know that they are intellectually dis-honest. Don’t go there with personal attacks on myself or Trump. This is a constitutional question. No cut and paste full page answers.
Yes or no, if Sen Cruz is qualified because of NBC, so too are the Arab Princes of Queen Noor.
Yeah, whatever it takes, like in Chicago, telling folks they’ll lose their business licenses if they vote for the wrong candidate, like stuffing the ballot box with the dead vote, like bussing in illegals and giving them treat money. No, I don’t buy into the “whatever it takes” ends justifies the means electioneering. It’s evil. Why is this so hard for folks to understand?
Peace,
SR
I foresee JimRob doing a major housecleaning job soon, way too many trolls around FR this election season.
Read what he says is the article, please/
Alrighty then. LOL
Just to avoid confusion, I am a Cruz Supporter first with Trump right behind him. Cruz is the only guy that got money from me. I do not suffer from CDS or TDS.
And the Constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances means the government always just says “I don’t care about this” and then the issue goes away and we all pretend everything is OK.
Just like in turd-world countries where they don’t even pretend to care about justice.
Welcome to Obama’s America. And you seem to be just fine with it. Sad.
Go after the DemoncRats Vin, they are the ones that are going to make this an issue
*****************
Anita Trump is a DemocRat????
unlikely. Trump is the odds-on favorite.
would be smart to get someone to sue him and rush it to the SC, like with the Bush/Gore issue.
i’m voting for him anyway so it doesn’t matter to me
lol
I’m not talking about Trump supporters, I’m talking Trump Trolls, and they are well known by now.
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.