“He should have been upfront about his connection to the Cruz campaign.â€
I agree with that. It is Mark who is a little disingenuous.
_______________________
Levin is only forthcoming when it suits him.
Sadly true Calisurfer. When trust is lost, as it has been for me toward both Cruz and Levin, it is useful to ask "Who does this kerfuffle benefit? Does Levin get sympathy, which he needs if more understand his blatant lies about settled law, Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875):
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
In 1875 it was the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court that not only were Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Haley, and McCain, not natural born citizens, but that they were aliens or foreigners by the naturalization laws in force in 1875. Congress eliminated the need for naturalization paperwork for those born on our soil, but Cruz was born in Canada, so unless his mother filed naturalization papers, his U.S. citizenship is questionable, and natural born U.S. citizenship nonsense. If we are a nation of laws, Cruz eligibility to be a Senator is questionable and ineligibility to the presidency certain. http://www.examiner.com/article/proof-that-ted-cruz-did-not-become-a-us-citizen-at-birth
Levin, when he deigns to talk at all about the issue, usually resorting to name-calling to avoid having to give a coherent answer, has cited the 1790 Naturalization Act from our 1st Congress. If you read that act you will see in the margin "Repealed by Act of March 29, 1795". If you read carefully, as good lawyers presumably do, even the 1790 Act doesn't say what Levin and Cruz claim. it clearly states "...shall be considered as natural born citizens". Bill Clinton would have caught that immediately because the word "is" is not in the sentence. It means the child of citizens born outside our borders is a naturalized citizen, with with all the protections and privileges of a natural born citizen. Madison likely changed the wording in 1795 anticipating that it might be misconstrued. He was right - misconstrued by Levin and Cruz and Tribe, probably for political reasons.
Cruz is losing two to nothing at Harvard Law, where professor Einar Elhaug, along with, if your read his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings about McCain's eligibility carefully. Larry Tribe understands the two citizen parent requirement. Larry's point was to blow smoke around the sovereign U.S. soil requirement. Levin's mission appears to be blowing smoke around the Constitution, which, as much as I agree with most of what Cruz and Levin claim to stand for, or against, is inexcusable, and intentional "Disinformation" (thank you Ion Pacepa - look him up on Amazon).