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 ...
BTW Levin just this minute used the case you cited to support the Cruz is eligible side.
What is the common sense answer?
We need a few new opinions here since no one seems to understand plain English.
Congress cannot simply amend the Constitution with a statutory law, it requires a Constitutional amendment ratified by the States. Now continue with the current justification, if it was ok for Obama then it is ok for Cruz.
The majority held that the statute, more particularly the residence requirement to the new citizen, was constitutional. The dissent said that part of the statute as unconstitutional.
Both sides say that a citizen at birth born abroad is naturalized. The majority said (roughly) they weren't naturalized in the US because citizenship attached at birth, and they were born abroad. This detail takes a citizenship out of the 14th amendment's "naturalized in the US" language. The dissent said naturalization happened in the US (a legal fiction), so the citizenship could not be stripped.
"Naturalized" and "natural born" are mutually exclusive.
Cruz's citizenship depends on a statute. Take away the statute, he isn't a citizen. The popular frame of analysis is to view a "natural born" vs. "naturalized" dichotomy. The law doesn't analyze that way. The law uses "citizen solely by statute" vs. "citizen without resort to statute" dichotomy. Only the "citizen without resort to statute" is a NBC.
I would expect that. Hardly anybody is going to read his cite, and it easy as pie to pick language from any case, to make any proposition. Courts do it all the time, especially in 2nd amendment cases. It's all smoke and mirrors and lies. Pick the outcome first, then cherry pick from precedent, statute, whatever.
The public will be swamped with articles by experts, learned professors, etc. that will add heft to the false conclusion (although making people think it is true).
No but I am sure Iran would be ok. Most here probably don't even recall Obama starting his campaign in Germany declaring he was a citizen of the World.
Rule of Law.
If you think Trump is more Conservative then you are being dishonest with yourself...sorry
Repeating it several time just doesn't seem to make it true. He was really born as a citizen of three countries. Canadian by virtue of birth in Canada, Cuban Citizenship buy virtue of his father's citizenship and American by virtue of his mothers citizenship. Now which ones of those are Natural Born because if one is is all are.
I figured you’d get around to addressing one of your cute replies to me. Nice deductive fallacy, BTW.
I think Cboldt pretty much nails it at Post 236.
Either you have some or you don't.
You will not find one post I have made that declares him a conservative. You may find that I absolutely support his position on immigration and the Wall and he has said a few things that I like, but being a true conservative never. One might consider however the result we get when we elect conservatives.
I think immigration is the only issue with out ending the totally out of control invasion there is no USA there is only Democratic Socialism then freedom disappears not only here but around the world. That is how important I believe the immigration invasion is. Put that with the fact that I believe Trump is electable and Cruz is not then it is a no brainer for me.
My first impression of Trump. "A fumble mouthed blowhard that can't speak in complete sentences."
I respect Cbolt’s opinion. He has forgotten more about the law than I will ever know. His prediction is right on the money though I disagree about his view about Cruz’s eligibility. Given his understanding of the Constitution and his understanding of the law, I defer.
I’m blushing. Thank you for your kind compliment.
Those who clearly understand their subject of expertise stand out as a cleary beacon flashing their wisdom to all. Once upon a time here on Free Republic we enjoyed many of those ilk. Not today, you are easy to pick out from the crowd.
FR and pretty much any chatroom (even the supposed highbrow ones) have an awful lot of noise, and precious little signal. That's just the way it is. I try to minimize my contribution to the noise part.
Thanks again for your amplified compliment. Now I have to go get a bigger hat ;-)
Don’t get a bigger hat, get more cattle. Argument is a lost art on this forum and I enjoy it when I see it.
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.