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 ...
ever hear of the Naturalization Act.
look it up. Its an American document.
reading is fundamental.
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.
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.
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.
Lawrence Tribe is your man...got ya
(Full Metal Jacket)
If it was settled law, why the controversy over the eligibility of Chester A. Arthur?
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.
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
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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
You on the other hand are nothing more than a Trump Troll, but hey, go for it!
Let me guess: we will soon see several posts claiming both Mark Levin and now Judge Napolitano don’t understand Constitution law.
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
Whoops...
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.