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 ...
Yeah sure.....
I get it...
Trump is the quintessential Conservative....cap C...
LOL
I never said you endorsed illegal activity, but it is the logical outcome of ends justifies the means reasoning, which Trump has displayed before (Kelo), and is doing now, by spreading irrational fear to take out a sound conservative. I believe he’s doing it because down deep he fears being “the loser.” Ironically, by taking this legal but unethical path, to me that means he already is a loser.
Peace,
SR
They?
If I’m not mistaken, Rafael Cruz and his wife deep connections and histories working for the Bush dynasty as legal GOPhers, with his wife becoming a Wall Street banker for Goldman Sachs of all places.
That’s everything I need to know...lol
First, you don't understand what the controversy about Chester A. Arthur's eligibility was about. He was born in VT to an American citizen mother and a father who was not a US citizen. His father got naturalized after Arthur was born. He was a citizen at birth because he was born on American soil. He was not naturalized. Those who claimed that he was not a natural born citizen under the Constitution as required to be President or VP. The changes in the law had nothing to do with Arthur's citizenship. He was a citizen at birth.
Second, you are confusing citizenship as it applies to those born abroad with the still to be defined requirement of a natural born citizen and eligibility to be President. Here are the current rules/laws that govern it
The change in the laws that pertained to the fact that Obama was not eligible if he were born abroad, even to an American citizen mother. Specifically,
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Obama's mother was 17 at the time of his birth in 1961. If Obama had been born overseas, his mother could not transmit citizenship at birth to him.
There are two ways to become a citizen, i.e., at birth and naturalization. There are two ways to obtain citizenship at birth, i.e., jus solis by being born on US soil, including US territories and jus sangunis, by blood.
Cruz obtained his citizenship via jus sanguinis, which is DERIVATIVE citizenship. Cruz's mother applied for his citizenship (assuming this was done in Canada at the time of his birth or during the four years he lived in Canada. In order to determine his eligibility, his mother had to prove her citizenship in order to transmit it to him. Taking no action would leave Cruz as solely a Canadian citizen. Cruz obtained his Canadian citizenship thru birthright citizenship, jus solis. Cruz was a Canadian before he was an American citizen.
Again, the definition of natural born citizen as it applies to eligibility for the Presidency has never been defined by the courts.
At the time of the McCain Senate resolution, the following article appeared in the WP: McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate
The Senate has unanimously declared John McCain a natural-born citizen, eligible to be president of the United States.
That is the good news for the presumptive Republican nominee, who was born nearly 72 years ago in a military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone, then under U.S. jurisdiction. The bad news is that the nonbinding Senate resolution passed Wednesday night is simply an opinion that has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legal scholars for many weeks.
Article II of the Constitution states that "no person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of president." The problem is that the Founding Fathers never defined exactly what they meant by "natural born citizen," and the matter has never been fully tested in court. At least three pending cases are challenging McCain's right to be sworn in as president.
Jurists on both sides of the political divide, consulted by the McCain campaign, insist that the issue is clear-cut. They argue that McCain is a natural-born citizen because the United States held sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth, on Aug. 29, 1936; because he was born on a U.S. military base; and because his parents were U.S. citizens.
But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the "natural born" issue in detail, said the question is "not so simple." While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.
"The Constitution is ambiguous," Duggin said. "The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution."
Senators sympathetic to McCain's position, including Democrats Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), dropped an earlier attempt to quell the eligibility controversy with legislation. McCaskill acknowledged in an interview that there is "no way" to completely resolve the question short of a constitutional amendment, a cumbersome process which could not be concluded before November.
She described the nonbinding resolution, which she sponsored, as "the quickest, clearest and most efficient" way for the Senate to send a message to the courts that McCain has the right to be president.
Well said...Agree 100%
The supreme court has never ruled on a business man running for President either. So what?
The TDS crew!
I think you’re right. We’ve NEVER EVER been accustomed to hearing live rallies. I’m sure Cruz and the other give the same canned speech each time.
With all due respect, that’s what this country needs right now.
Bull crap, no Cruz supporter with any sense would vote for Hillary, however on the other hand 27 % of Trump’s support is Democrats.
I actually hope Trump wins the nomination and the election. We need someone who is going to kick butt and take names later. Cruz is ok but he is way to political and careful to get things done. Trump just does it.
It’s sad that we can’t make a law that you have to be born on American soil to be President. To me that should be number one law. Sorry military folks overseas. I mean I was in 24 years and some of my children would not be President if that were the rule and I am ok with it. To think a person can be an American President but born in Canada is insane. Nothing is sacred. I guess you will be hoping an Iranian born person can run next. Absolutely dumb.
“Judge Nap: Cruz’s American Citizenship Is Settled and Established”
“But he noted that Trump is correct that the Supreme Court has never reviewed the law “because the issue has never come up.”
I’m no legal expert but these two statements seem to clash.
Donald, this is getting tedious. Drop it, admit he’s natural born, and stop being a jerk.
I just skimmed the Gordon paper and it seems that he does endorse citizenship for those born outside the U.S. but to TWO citizen parents, not one. Granted, I didn’t read in detail, but that’s what I took away....FWIW, I don’t believe Cruz is eligible. I mean he does/did have 3 separate citizenships; Canadian, Cuban and American. At face value, that is just ridiculous to think that would qualify someone for President...Cruz could actually help himself immensely by just releasing his Consular Record of Birth abroad, which would probably end this for the time being. My guess is that it was never filed and therefore, administratively, Cruz is, was and always has been a Canadian citizen (at least until he renounced it).
I gave him the chance to say he wouldn’t vote at all or he would write in Cruz but he went further and said hillary. He could be a gop plant. I put in ibtz right after that in my next post to him, and he said he’s been here longer than I have.
Entire libraries of settled law have never come up at the Supreme Court. The fact that the Supreme Court has never decided to rule on any particular issue could be argued as one of the definitions of “settled law”. I believe that the courts will never settle this issue is because they think that it’s already settled.
The only circumstance that I can foresee this changing is if a candidate is rejected from a ballot on a citizenship issue and that candidate files a lawsuit to be placed on the ballot. I don’t think that will happen.
Ask the Trump supporters this , since the VP by default is just a heart beat away from the presidency , AND ? they keep clamering about how Ted Cruz can’t get his turn as President AFTER Trump has served as President AFTER $ or 8 years, why now ?
Why is Ted Cruz’s eligibility such a problem and issue with them now ?
Got to be consistent here.
They have NO problem of Ted Cruz being the VP and after 4 or 8 years of Trump as President Ted Cruz can get his turn as President.
So why is he not eligible now but be can be President AFTER Trump ?
I know, I know, makes to much sense..
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.