Posted on 01/18/2016 1:43:58 PM PST by South40
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump drew a distinction between eligibility questions surrounding Marco Rubio's run for the presidency versus those clouding Ted Cruz's bid, saying the Florida senator is qualified because although his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, he was born in the U.S. -- unlike Cruz.
"It's a different, very different thing because he was born here. He was born on the land," Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union." "Ted was not born on the land, and there's a very strict reading that you have to be born on the land. (Harvard Law professor) Laurence Tribe actually said based on Ted's views, he would have to be born on the land."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Yep, I think you’re right a Welfare Queen’s baby deserves the opportunity over a soldier overseas that fathered a child and later fought and died for his country.
It is estimated that there has been hundreds of thousands of children born aboard to military and support personal over the last 44 years. We should not trust these scum? If only they were born in America so we can ensure their loyalty.
At this moment there are over 150,000 military personal alone deployed. Thousands live with their families and have babies. Not only military but business leaders, doctors, students studying abroad, and countless loyal Americans might have a child overseas while ministering, studying, working, curing disease, making new discoveries, and traveling. I suppose none of these children are loyal either? Give me the child of someone that lived off the government tit their whole life.
What Trump says now is meaningless. He previously said he had checked with lawyers and that Cruz was perfectly qualified to be President. But we see how quickly and completely Trump will flip and flop when his poll numbers are threatened. He will do exactly the same thing if Rubio threatens him.
Of course he will. He's atypical liberal.
>>> Yep, I think you’re right a Welfare Queen’s baby deserves the opportunity over a soldier overseas that fathered a child and later fought and died for his country.
I didn’t say that, and your example does not apply.
First of all, a soldier overseas is not representative of a foreign government trying to exploit our electoral system.
Secondly, children born overseas to soldiers overseas are considered to be natural born. (military or other US base = US soil)
Rubio is not eligible for the Senate because he's not a citizen
Since when is Donald Trump the final authority on the constitution? I am not crazy about either of them, that’s why I’m going with Marco Rubio.
Not all babies of soldiers are born on base. Thousands aren’t over a few years. What about doctors, ministers, scientists, emergency aid workers, travelers, anyone working toward a greater humanity and partnered overseas for awhile, etc... etc... ????
>>> Not all babies of soldiers are born on base. Thousands aren’t over a few years. What about doctors, ministers, scientists, emergency aid workers, travelers, anyone working toward a greater humanity and partnered overseas for awhile, etc... etc... ????
Well, keep in mind we are talking about qualifications for the highest office in the nation... and yet here we are talking about it as if it should be every American’s right to be president.
Surely, many are born overseas, or are born to 1 or more parents who are not citizens at the time of their birth who WOULD be loyal 100%... but how many of those would want to, let alone have the leadership skills, intelligence, etc to make it through the rigorous path to get there?
No doubt that the founder’s original intent would naturally weed out candidates that would otherwise make great presidents.... but it was not their objective to be fair. The objective was to prevent foreign governments from gaining influence or power through our elective process.
Without birthplace, 2 parents with the intent to groom a presidential plant could easily gain citizenship and move back to their country of origin and have a child eligible to be president who grew up in a foreign land.
Without dual parental citizenship, the 2 same parents could simply move to the US, have the baby, and again move back to their country of origin and raise the same child.
It would not take many years of this practice in mass effort by many individuals of many countries to have a world full of people who would eventually be eligible to run for president of the US.
Requiring both parents to be citizens as well as birthplace in the US, combined with residence requirements is the highest reasonable level of scrutiny that is possible... and the importance of that office requires it.
If Obama had been born overseas, his US mother could not have transmitted citizenship. The Tribe/Olson opinion on McCain contained the gratuitous finding that Obama was eligible to be President because he had been born on US soil. The citizenship of his parents was not an issue according to Tribe/Olson. No doubt they would probably say the same thing about Rubio and Jindal.
Except there is already precedence that your requirements are not being met. Let’s just say for argument sake that the current President was born in Hawaii. His father was not a citizen. His mother at the time could not legally transfer citizenship (reside in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.) to him. She was 18, missed the criteria by a year.
Yet here he sits. Untouchable. Hell, the current President is not even a citizen.
>>> Except there is already precedence that your requirements are not being met.
Not my requirements... Constitutional requirements. I would vote for Cruz If I knew for a fact that his candidacy would not be in question.
Laws are meaningless if they are not enforced.
The constitution likewise is meaningless if it is not upheld.
I believe that was the intention all along... yet another way that our cornerstone document which defines this nation has been and continues to be unraveled.
Haa, haa... Unraveled? The Constitution has changed drastically since inception. Lets see some of the items that have gone by the wayside.
Only white men over 21 could vote, Presidential term limits (non-existent), slavery allowed, etc... etc...
Which Constitution are you talking about? There have been 27 amendments. The Constitution is continually evolving.
By the way, eight of the first nine Presidents as well as early potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America. They were not natural born by your definition since the British Empire had undue influence over their lives.
A lot of smart, reasonable people honestly believe that history suggests that the Founding Fathers used the term “natural born” as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens.
>>> By the way, eight of the first nine Presidents as well as early potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America.
The constitution made specific exceptions in that era, because nobody would meet the standard specified for a while.
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.