Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Nap: Cruz's American Citizenship Is Settled and Established
Fox ^ | 1/11/15 | Staff

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Canada; Cuba; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Iowa; US: New York; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 2016election; andrewnapolitano; canada; canadian; citizen; citizenship; cruz; cuba; election2016; foxnews; ineligible; iowa; judgenap; legal; naturalborncitizen; newyork; tedcruz; texas; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-297 next last
To: usafa92

ever hear of the Naturalization Act.

look it up. Its an American document.

reading is fundamental.


141 posted on 01/11/2016 9:54:57 AM PST by dp0622 (i .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

And just to avoid confusion myself, I am also a Cruz supporter first, with Trump in a distant second (no one in third). No CDS or TDS here either.


142 posted on 01/11/2016 9:55:37 AM PST by dem bums
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
"There's no ideological debate here: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson; who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain's eligibility. Recall that McCain lately one of Cruz's chief antagonists was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

If you read the the opinion you will see that they found McCain eligible thru both jus sanguinis and jus solis. This means that the the 300,000 children born annually to illegal aliens are eligible to be President. It also means the children born here of tourists visiting the US are eligible to be President.

In the same opinion they declared Obama was eligible to be President due to the fact he was born in Hawaii.

Based on the opinion, the Senate issued a non-binding resolution, S RES 511 that was co-sponsored by McCaskill, Obama, Clinton, Coburn, and Leahy. If it was settled law, why the need for the Resolution?

If it was settled law, why the controversy over the eligibility of Chester A. Arthur? It needs to be resolved. Cruz has already had his eligibility challenged to be on the ballot in NH, MD, FL, and VT.

143 posted on 01/11/2016 9:55:48 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

I was one of the original Obama birthers but walked away from it because way too many trolls were being welcomed by FReepers just because they sounded like they agreed. They then were encouraging people to demand all other republicans get on board or else. It becan more of an attack on republicans than any search for truth.

It did come out of the Clinton Skunkworks to begin with.

I don’t know if Obama was eligible but it was clearly a pointless attack.

Now those same trolls are back stirring the pot again.


144 posted on 01/11/2016 9:57:20 AM PST by cripplecreek (Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Chauncey Uppercrust

Lawrence Tribe is your man...got ya


“Lawrence!..Only sailors and queers are named Lawrence!”

(Full Metal Jacket)


145 posted on 01/11/2016 10:00:37 AM PST by AFret.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kabar

If it was settled law, why the controversy over the eligibility of Chester A. Arthur?


If you actually read the article you will see the law has been changed since Chester A. Arthur’s time.


146 posted on 01/11/2016 10:00:46 AM PST by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
I foresee JimRob doing a major housecleaning job soon, way too many trolls around FR this election season.

I say good riddance to the obnoxious Cruzers. JR can not exile you all quick enough.
147 posted on 01/11/2016 10:01:14 AM PST by JoSixChip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: dp0622

Yes wise guy. Is that all you’ve got? Which one would you like to discuss, 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802 or any of the ones in the 19th and 20th century? The 1795 one was the only one to address NBC and that is not favorable to your guy. Since that act was repealed, all follow on acts have only addressed citizenship not the meaning of NBC. Typical comeback from a Cruz supporter; condescension and an air of superiority over your supposed knowledge. Spin it however you want, but the issue has never been settled. But while we’re at it, which of your boy’s 3 citizenship statuses would you like to discuss? Canadian which he is by birth, Cuban which he is by his father or American by way of a Congressional act? It’s funny to what you all try to spin any and everything to support a guy who everyday is more and more not what he had you fooled to believe.


148 posted on 01/11/2016 10:02:33 AM PST by usafa92 (Conservative in Jersey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
RE:”Who to believe? Judge Napolitano and Mark Levin, or some nobody lawyer from Fordham?”

Trump is a constitutional scholar too. Have those two ever owned a business?

Trump has owned many:

Trump Air, The New Jersey Generals, The Trump Taj Mahal, The Trump Plaza, The Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts, Trump Entertainment Resorts, Trump Vodka, Trump: The Game, Trump Steaks, Trump Mortgage

149 posted on 01/11/2016 10:02:36 AM PST by sickoflibs (Donald Trump : 'It will be wonderful. It will be glorious., You will be amazed, Just wait"')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dp0622

First, it is unclear if some person suing Cruz on this issue would have standing to bring the issue. Second, that standing would really be called into question if Cruz had prompted the person to sue him. Third, lawsuits don’t just get ‘rushed’ to the Supreme Court. You have to sue in a District Court. Then wait for the District Court to rule. Then appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals. Then wait for them to rule. Just that part of the process can take years. Then you have to file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court gets to decide whether they want to take the case or not. In the case of such a lawsuit as you are proposing, the Supreme Court could well decide not to grant certiorari. In fact, I think it would be likely that the Supreme Court would not want to get involved.


150 posted on 01/11/2016 10:03:41 AM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The courts are not our mommy where we can run to and cry about how the bullies are being mean.

This issue is in the hands of the voters. They made a profoundly error for the last two Presidential elections, they will have a choice once again.

You do have to acknowledge that the Obama team were brilliant in how they managed to get the entire country wrapped around a Constitutional issue that was never going to be resolved rather than discovering the real flaw in Obama’s bona fides. We still don’t know for sure what it is, but it was certainly not the place and fact of his birth, that was just a convenient smokescreen. You have pointed to the issue of the Indonesian citizenship and his possible fraudulent foreign student claims, but that was all overlooked by great leaps to wrong conclusions based on misinterpretation of behavior that could be observed. He manipulated everyone and he won.

That has nothing to do with the current argument. Cruz is eligible to be President, it’s not a Constitutional issue and the courts will ignore it.


151 posted on 01/11/2016 10:03:57 AM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: dp0622

“ever hear of the Naturalization Act.

look it up. Its an American document.

reading is fundamental.”

There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz’s citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute. If I get a chance sometime, I would like to spend the time to highlight the findings of this case that bear on the current discussion. Here is one particular quote of note:

Quote
“Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.”

I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question. But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.

I will use myself as an example. I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution. That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.


152 posted on 01/11/2016 10:05:04 AM PST by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Ha!

I recall several purges.

Usually the purges occur because one candidate or another was not conservative enough.

So just how is it, that you can organize a purge of Cruz supporters in favor of Trump?


153 posted on 01/11/2016 10:05:26 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: AFret.

oops I spelled his first name wrong whatever.

but here is Laurence Tribe apparently your boy :)

Tribe is one of the co-founders of the liberal American Constitution Society, the law and policy organization formed to counter the conservative Federalist Society


154 posted on 01/11/2016 10:08:39 AM PST by Chauncey Uppercrust (CRUZ/ trump 2016 OR BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: VinL
IMHO, The Donald's "attack" is actually helping his potential VP Cruz. It brings the issue to the forefront and allows Cruz to settle it long before any Dems and liberal media (that's redundant isn't it) use this issue as their weapon to further obfuscate things. It also helps Cruz by putting him in the spotlight along with Trump. (The media loves to have in-fighting.) I mean, my God, the amount of news coverage this issue is getting is amazing! Cruz has already proven that he is, if I may, 2legit 2quit! Cruz needs to bring that proof to the masses and bring it out early. As Judge Nap nailed it, ...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." It's just a matter of time, when the early primary dust settles, we'll have a 2 man race for the rest of the primaries with the two non-establishment/outsiders, Trump and Cruz. It's pure genius!

It's funny. When I first heard Trump with this "attack," it didn't really sound like an "attack" to me at all. If anything, it sounded to me like Trump giving Cruz excellent advice. I bet Rubio is wishing Trump would "attack" him, now!

I like Cruz and Trump. I prefer Cruz, but I think Trump has better media savvy. Personally, I'm hoping for a Trump/Cruz or Cruz/Trump ticket. The two can really compliment each other and learn from each other's strengths.
155 posted on 01/11/2016 10:10:26 AM PST by hawaiianninja (Palm note to self: "Prepare for some serious 2016 house cleaning. Trump/Cruz or Cruz/Trump 2016!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
The big difference between you and I Joe is that I'm only a Cruz supporter.

You on the other hand are nothing more than a Trump Troll, but hey, go for it!

156 posted on 01/11/2016 10:15:44 AM PST by PROCON
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Let me guess: we will soon see several posts claiming both Mark Levin and now Judge Napolitano don’t understand Constitution law.


157 posted on 01/11/2016 10:26:03 AM PST by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Don’t let your TDS blind you to what the Democrats have planned for Cruz. We are in the Primaries, not the General.

I’m a Cruz guy first with Trump second. This whole thing is just a Tempest in a Teapot compared to what the Liberals and their Media friends are planning if Cruz gets the nod.

That Anita Trump meme is kind a funny though. I actually said hello to the real Anita Hill way back when at a Restaurant in Laguna Beach. At the time I didn’t know it was her until Mrs. K.C. said to me, do you know who that was? I have never lived it down. LOL


158 posted on 01/11/2016 10:26:20 AM PST by Kickass Conservative (Obama, unable to call a Spade a Spade...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: VinL
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."

Whoops...

159 posted on 01/11/2016 10:29:19 AM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
So just how is it, that you can organize a purge of Cruz supporters in favor of Trump?

Because Cruz is a RINO. Why else would he have pushed TPA through Congress, voted to enabled obumber to make any deal he wants with Iran with pre-full Congressional backing, supports flooding the country with cheap foreign labor using H1B visas and amnesty for the illegals already here. Add to that his campaign is funded by GOPe groups like CFG and GS. That is not what I call a conservative. Trump on the other hand is for treaties and trade deals that benefit America and American workers. Trump also will deport all, I repeat all, illegal aliens and secure the boarders from further invasion. Not to mention Trump will remove the Islamic terrorist already here. That is what I call conservative action. Any more questions?
160 posted on 01/11/2016 10:30:48 AM PST by JoSixChip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-297 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson