Posted on 02/20/2016 8:52:39 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Now Donald Trump is questioning Marco Rubio' eligibility for the presidency.
In a tweet Saturday, Trump shared a video of what appears to be an attorney making a bizarre case that not only Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, but Rubio, whose parents immigranted from Cuba, is not eligible to become president.
In the tweet to his 6.3 million followers, Trump quoted a message sent to him by another Twitter user, who at the time appeared to have five followers: "@realDonaldTrump Mr. Trump...BOTH Cruz AND Rubio are ineligible to be POTUS! It's a SLAM DUNK CASE!! Check it!"
The tweet links to a video on the website of the Powdered Whig Society, a group that says it is dedicated "to the restoration and strict obedience to the United States Constitution."
The 12-minute video shows an unidentified woman who is purported to be a litigation attorney describe what it means to be a natural born citizen. She argues that both Rubio and Cruz are citizens, but not "natural born citizens" according to the Constitution, which says only natural born citizens may become president.
Rubio was born in Miami. That makes him a natural born U.S. citizen under the Constitution. But the unnamed woman in the video Trump posted says he is not a "naturalized citizen," because his citizenship is defined under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. If not for this "man-made law," she says Rubio would have been born a "resident alien," the same status of his parents, both of whom were Cuban nationals.
The supposed attorney later goes on to call Congress using laws to change the original text of the Constitution as "ridiculous."
"In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definition the framer's use, otherwise texts become like Play-Doh. They mean whatever you want them to mean to get the outcome you want," she says.
Cruz, who was born in Canada to father who was a Cuban national and an American mother. Some legal scholars says that leaves his eligibility to run for president in question. But the supposed attorney makes a far more questionable case. She argues that when the Constitution was written, a woman's legal identity was subsumed into her husband's. That would also disqualify Cruz, she says, because it is necessary that he be born of a father who is a citizen.
When the Constitution was written in the 1780s, the purported attorney says all the framers knew what a natural born citizen was, using a definition provided in Swiss philosopher and legal expert Emerich de Vattel's book on political philosophy The Law of Nations. In it, she says, a child's status as a citizen is defined as being inherited from the father, and that it does not matter where the child is born.
Like his eye color, citizenship is "inherited by his parents, it's in his blood," she says. "Not an act of Congress."
Scroll down for video
I couldn’t find the citizenship of Ivana. His children visited and worked for their grandfather during summer vacations. Grandpa made less than 5n000 a year as a tradesman. Electrician iirc. Pretty tough conditions behind the iron curtain.
Melania was in the process of getting citizenship when she met DT. At least already was past the visa point. She became a citizen in 2006. Barron is 9
You need to search FR for the hundreds of NBC threads where actual statements from our founding fathers state exactly what they meant. There are other ‘08 threads with discussions from present day Senate Resolutions and lawyers who truly love this country. Obama and Hillary both signed in April 2008, Senate Resolution 511 agreeing to the NBC = Born on US soil and TWO US citizen parents. This was hashed out in ‘08 but many here have short memories and have flip flopped just to promote their candidate.
“Then shut up and file it, Trump. No more empty threats.”
The Trump in the Hair is busy paddling Cuban Thing #1 and Thing #2 right now. Besides, why waste the money at this point?
When we tried to bounce Obama, the courts keep saying the challenge was a non-justiciable `political question’ right?
He knows as well as we that the matter should be moot by about 7:00 PM.
But if necessary eventually it’s likely a court will say a political opponent has standing and that the matter is ripe and justiciable.
This is why the Framers wrote, in clear and unequivocal English, “You want to be pres or veep? OK, just those two jobs but ... not natural born? Don’t even think about it.”
And this is why those of us who don’t want to give the GOP-e or their Democrat allies ammunition have been so dismayed by this Cuban-Canadian Constitutional law `originalist’ expert who has presumed to run for only one of the two jobs in the United States that he’s not eligible to hold.
What has the SCOTUS ruled as the definition of ‘income’? Does it mean ‘all that comes in’? Or is it limited in its scope that not all that one earns is ‘income’ for purposes of the 16th Amendment, that it is the activity that is taxed and the amount of tax owed is determined by the dollars produced form that taxable activity? Is the 16th Amendment tax, therefore, a direct tax or an excise tax? What do the statutes as large that govern the 16th Amendment say & what has the SCOTUS ruled in regards to those statutes at large? And does the IRS abide by these rulings when an educated person files or does not file according to the statutes & rulings of the SCOTUS?
Recently???
Your link is an interview with Howard Stern that aired in 1997, comment was in context a not very funny self depreciation, made to a shock jockey, almost 20 years ago.
As poor Daniel Chaitin wakes from a long slumber, his head explodes when he understands Rubio is not eligible!!.
But I take issue with the idea that the Founder's were not clear about what they meant by NBC. They used a term that had a specific legal meaning at the time they wrote the Constitution.But the very first Congress, including many of the Framers, then went and explicitly defined NBC as something different than Vassal in the very first Immigration Bill.
They obviously didn't believe that it was "settled", or they wouldn't have felt the need to define who was and wasn't an NBC in that first Immigration bill.
And, they obviously didn't believe that they weren't allowed to define the term, as they did in 1790, 1795 and many times since then.
If he were a politician he wouldn't be saying these things. Its because he is basically an honest man that he keeps saying.."The Emperor has no clothes."
Do you really believe that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeHSeCJrD-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhRiPdAwx0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd46hg4Wj0Y
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3399584/posts?page=55#55
Let’s Put an End to this Birther Nonsense about Ted Cruz
[snip]
It never says that the father has to be a citizen of the United States at the time the child is born. All it says is that citizenship “shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” It is indisputable that Rafael Cruz was in the United States for a period of time prior to both Ted’s birth and his marriage to native born American citizen Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson in 1969. He fled Cuba in 1957 at the age of 18, arriving in Texas. There, he attended the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics in 1961. He even married his first wife there, Julia Ann Garza, in 1959. They later divorced, but not before he had two daughters with her. He was also granted political asylum in 1961 upon his graduation from UT.
In other words, Ted Cruz’s birth meets everything required in this 1790 act. His mother, Eleanor Wilson, was a citizen by birth in the United States, fulfilling the requirement of a child being born to at least one citizen, and his father had lived in the United States for years and been granted political asylum here prior to his move to Canada.”..
It gets hot and heavy here sometimes so its not uncommon to get hit by friendly fire : )
Do you really believe that?It's obvious.
Every time a birther says he is just following the Constitution, he immediately has to use outside sources to try to justify his position. Lots of references to Vassal, lots of references to the occasional comment in a letter by one of the framers. But they ultimately ignore the fact that the Framers did not define the term NBC, and therefore it is up to Congress to define it.
If the Framers didn't want Congress to define it, they would have explicitly defined it in the Constitution.
The 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act, and the phrase "natural born citizen" appears in only the 1790 act.
Additionally, the 1790 act is not a definition. It uses the phrase "shall be considered as," which is the same language used today in many law, e.g., "a 21 year old shall be considered as a child."
The 1790 Act has been cited in SCOTUS precedents. The 1790 Act has never been construed as creating a natural born citizen.
Regarding your voting for Bush. That is the reason he has been hanging around saying HE was going to be the candidate. Thinking the citizenship issue would become prominent sooner rather than later and he would be one of only a few left. It is also the reason Kasick is still in.
Jindall knew he wasn’t eligible and as soon as Santorum eligibility was questioned he dropped out. (His parent both Italian may only have been in final process of receiving citizenship)
So why with 15 candidates do almost a third have citizenship issues???
I am educated in the 16th Amendment & it serves me well every year NOT to have to give any portion of my private earnings to the federal government. Does this woman say something different than that?
Article 2 says this:
No person except a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the United States..
It says “or” and not “and.” What’s so hard to understand? Didn’t Trump take an English course in college?>>> actually it says No person except a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall...... the qualification for the exception to natural born was for the folks born under the King but became citizens as of the enacting of the constitution. since those folks are now all dead the NBC applies to the rest of us.
Which is exactly what the statute at large that govern the 16th Amendment income tax does, they are sacrosanct with the Constitution. So why is this a problem for you?
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.