Posted on 01/24/2016 1:04:47 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I usually enjoy reading Ann Coulter's columns thanks to her acerbic wit and gutsy grit. But, being human, she has flaws, among which is a penchant to suspend rationality when advocating for her flavor of the year in Republican presidential candidates. In past years, it was Chris Christie and Mitt Romney. Now, thanks mainly to his tough stance on immigration, it's Donald Trump.
This infatuation has caused her to write some ridiculous things about the eligibility of Ted Cruz for the presidency. Her use of the term "naturalization" is, frankly, unworthy of her status as a law school graduate. A recently published article from the Harvard Law Review holds that: "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase 'natural born citizen' has a specific meaning - namely, someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time." Cruz meets this requirement.
There are only two paths to citizenship: automatically at birth, or after one's birth through some legal process such as immigration and naturalization. The plain meaning of "natural born citizen" is understood to be a person who was a citizen "naturally" by reason of birth, as differentiated from obtaining citizenship later in life. In 1790, the First Congress passed a law providing, "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
Newton Schwartz, an 85-year-old lawyer, has filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Texas challenging Cruz' eligibility. Schwartz told Bloomberg News that, while he's not linked to any particular presidential campaign, he will probably support Democrat/Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Nice company you're in, Annie!
Legally, this man has no "standing" to file this action. Only another presidential candidate could do so. If Trump actually thinks Cruz is ineligible, let him file suit and request expedited consideration which, along with any subsequent appeals, would surely be decided on an emergency basis. Otherwise, let's move on to real issues!
True.
Alito recently spoke in NY and said that when people make arguments, they are not necessarily speaking for the attention of the person they are addressing but are trying to convince a different justice. E.g., when they address him they are trying to convince the other side of something.
He also countered the argument that the justices are only umpires in a baseball game. He gave several examples of how baseball can be ambiguous and requires serious judgment calls. Baseball fans in the audience contributed but he knew much more about it.
I am fascinated to find out how they will decide this one and hope it will NOT be too political. I am dismayed by how many people consider themselves too good for Trump.
Drill down to the actual summation statement in the thread, at the ad site, and in Ted’s tweet;
“This is actually a pretty good ad exposing how Trump has used eminent domain to bulldoze an elderly woman’s home to create a limo parking lot for his casino:”
That statement asserts - as fact - the following;
- An elderly woman’s home was bulldozed.
- Trump used eminent domain to bulldoze the woman’s home.
- a parking lot was built where the home was.
All three in factual reality are not true. They are lies.
Do you not have a problem with using lies to make a point? If there is a need to lie to make a point all credibility as a truth supporter disappears in a flash of short circuited logic.
Is that not a problem?? If not why not??
Prince Mohammad Abdullah, born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. His mother is a US citizen, but his father is Saudi Royalty.
The Prince could be an American president -- born in a foreign land, his mother is a US citizen, and therefore he's a natural born citizen.
Now, I have an issue with that.
Cruz has precisely the same situation, and I have an issue with that too.
For me, NBC means born on US soil, to 2 parents who are US citizens (naturalized or otherwise). Whether the courts agree with me is a legitimate issue. Perhaps the courts want a Saudi Prince to rule over us.
I never said otherwise. But if you want to win this argument, you have to resort to legal authority, SCOTUS precedent or the US constitution. Rhetorical arguments void of reference to legal authority are not even persuasive, they are a waste of time.
It’s inaccurate in the details but the base event occurred.
Trump used eminent domain against the woman to make a parking lot. She’s fortunate she had the money for a lawyer or he would have won.
Glossing over that fact makes you a liar.
With or without a CRBA, he is a naturalized citizen.
I have an issue with the prince as well. But the law says he’s a citizen. As a dual citizen he could not run for president.
So where is his CRBA and passport? A FOIA request was denied. Why won’t Ted show them?
I choose to listen to legal experts who are trained and know this area of the law. They say Cruz is a nbc. Scouts has never heard a case on this from what I’ve read. You know that. Why would you ask for one?
The ad in question squatted and dropped a flat-out lie in stating that eminent domain actions “made Trump rich”.
Right now, the property is a vacant lot because the person who bought the property in 2014 decided to demolish the building.
The Trump eminent domain action occurred in 1993.
This is a legitimate issue, and I don’t agree with Trump’s view on this, but Cruz should be ashamed of himself for allowing that sleazy dishonest ad to air.
Ted should issue a correction. Tell the world trump tried to take the woman’s property through eminent domain. But he is a loser and was beaten by a little old lady.
“Asking price drops on house Vera Coking refused to sell to Trump”
Decades later, the lone house dwarfed by Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino still sparks a memory or two.
Remember? the woman asked her male companion Tuesday as she crossed Columbia Place. “This is the house that woman wouldn’t sell to Trump.”
Vera Coking, now 85, gained national attention when she refused to sell the former 29-room boarding house to Donald Trump. Now, the home has been on the market two years, resulting in a multimillion-dollar reduction in price from $5 million to $995,000.
Not true. Her defense was pro bono by lawyers from the Institute For Justice.
Their answers are mixed. The ones who say Cruz is not naturalized cite no legal authority for that proposition.
-- Scouts has never heard a case on this from what I've read --
SCOTUS has heard many cases on the citizenship of a person born abroad to one citizen parent. I named one such case in a post to you. Rogers v. Bellei. Bellei was born in Italy on December 22, 1939. His mother was a US citizen who met US residency requirements recited in the relevant Act of Congress. Bellei was a US citizen at birth.
Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States." Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.Emphasis on the word "in" is mine, for the purpose of noting the argument between the majority and the dissent turns on the location, on the planet, where Bellei was naturalized. All 9 justices work from the premise that Bellei was naturalized. Indeed, had Bellei not been naturalized, his case would not even exist. He would not be a US citizen.
“I heard her insanity the other night. She used to be entertaining and cute but now she is shrill, bitter and annoying.”
Oh how times have changed. I remember getting flamed royally when I suggested Ms. Coulter eat a sandwich and take a Midol.
“The thing as per the 1952 statute he is eligible:”
For citizenship, certainly, but a statute cannot over ride the Constitution in no form or fashion, does not change the Constitutional requirement to be natural born or what natural born signified in 1789.
How do you distinguish the Saudi prince dual citizen, from dual-citizen-at-birth (actually three, Cuba had a claim the same as the US) Cruz?
I do agree with you, BTW, that a person cannot be born a dual citizen, and also be a naturally born citizen.
There are thousands of laws/statutes that modify, alter, override expand the meaning of the constitution...
Of course not for the NBC clause.../S
So 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth is now unconstitutional ?
Yes. I agree with that.
But the article makes a claim about the 1790 law that isn’t the complete story for that law. There were two provisions that applied that weren’t mentioned.
But, it is interesting that the birth to one citizen WAS NOT the issue. One also had to meet provisions. AT THAT TIME.
You say that isn't your common practice, so I apologize.
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.