Trump 'slam dunk' tweet questions Rubio's eligibility to run

Washington Examiner ^ | February 20, 2016 | Daniel Chaitin

[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

[grania]

What we’re saying is that there’s no universally accepted definition of Natural Born Citizen. Until that happens, all your articles are irrelevant, except as part of the courts sorting it out.

[theoilpainter]

Obama’s father was a US citizen? Must have been, otherwise why would he sign this?

Below you ( or someone) posted that Obama was not eligible.

[grania]

Thank you.

[Cboldt]

-- The "birthers" arguments are all ultimately based on the nonsensical position that some Swiss writer takes priority of the Congress. ... It's obvious. --

So, the arguments that use SCOTUS case law don't exist?

There are literally hundreds of cases on the nature of citizenship accorded to one born abroad.

But, never mind that, let's use JUST the constitution, is that okay?

While the constitution doesn't define NBC, it DOES define citizen.

[kvanbrunt2]

And what make Rubio an “anchor baby”? Under your “analysis”, all children of immigrants are anchor babies. So, a natural born citizen is a person who must be from at least a second generation family where all parents were born here.

There is no support for this.>>>

i think, but i could be wrong, that if you are born of citizens, then you are natural born. your parents can be naturalized but you can’t be.

[RC one]

throwing a hissy fit? Is that what you call defending the constitution?

[DJ MacWoW]

So Long, Uncle Sam: Famous Americans Who Renounced Their Homeland

Lisa Halaby, daughter of a Pan American World Airways executive, became a Jordanian citizen when she married King Hussein in 1978. She says she automatically lost her U.S. citizenship but never renounced it.

Queen Noor of Jordan

Queen Noor's involvement in the political arena has been decidedly behind the scenes due to her ambiguous status as an American (although she relinquished her alliance and citizenship when she married). However, in 1984, when King Hussein walked the political tightrope—trying to please both his American and Israeli allies as well as protect his Palestinian citizens during the Iran-Iraq War—Noor stood by his side and supported his criticism of Americans for being one-sided in their commitment to Israel.

[JayGalt]

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

Senate R511 is a non-binding, understanding, that can not be held as a law. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion. This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…;

[Mastador1]

Basically an honest man........except when he's not, pretty much sums up almost everyone..

[Kickass Conservative]

Rubio and Jindal have the same problem.

I think Rubio’s Number One Fan Nikki Haley is also in the same boat.

Born to two Legal Resident Non Citizen Parents on United States soil. Legal Anchor Babies.

[P-Marlowe]

Huh? Can you translate that into English?

[odawg]

“Let’s not forget that Trump wasn’t one of those who “dodged bullets” for his country. He was a draft dodger.”

First, have you ever dodged bullets as a soldier?

How many of the other presidential candidates have dodged bullets as soldiers?

“I’m not the one making the silly “birther” arguments. That would be the Trumpsters. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of their arguments.”

In other words, the writers of the Constitution were “silly” when they inserted the natural born clause into the Constitution?

[Lurkinanloomin]

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.

******************************************

I suspect he knows what it means but decided that since Barry Soetoro coud get away with it so could he.
This would be stretching even further to allow not only foreign national fathers but also foreign birth.
Clearly not the intent of the men who wrote the document.
The term is exclusionary. If one can be anything else, they can’t be a natural born citizen. That upsets some people.
Simply born a citizen, if even only on one’s mother’s side includes so many more people. It’s the living breathing kind of document, ya know.

[Bidimus1]

I am saying is that there are only two documents of the founding era that use the phrase natural born citizen. First is the US Constitution, 1789 the second is the immigration law of 1790. The US Constitution give Congress exclusive power to define citizenship which it did in 1790. There are no other documents by the founders in law that contradict the law of 1790 it stands as the guide to the original intent of the founders.
Dictated with Google Voice

[Waryone]

No, no one born here to foreigner parents can be a natural born citizen. Rubio’s parents were Cuban nationals, not American citizens. So Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Otherwise, thousands of Soviet, Chinese or Cuban spies could have children who grow up to become president. The Founding fathers were wiser than that. I wish American citizens today were as smart.

[Bidimus1]

But he did have his own personal Vietnam said so him self because he dodged all over various venereal diseases from his youth . I would also like to thank all of those who have served in the military defending this nation for the service Dictated with Google Voice.

[bgill]

Perhaps, but I bet you’re all for the SR that states no lame duck SCOTUS appointees.

[theoilpainter]

I always thought you were a natural born citizen if you were born in the USA (in other words, not naturalized) or if you were born of at least one US citizen. Cruz’s mother was born in the USA, and was a “natural born citizen”. Rubio and Obama were born in the USA. I believe Rubio’s parents were legal residents, but I don’t think this is a requirement.

The original purpose here wast to prevent the import a foreign ruler, as would happen in Europe with royalty.

This was the understanding when I was in law school ( admittedly, some time ago), and from authorities I read recently.

You can become a citizen by birth or by naturalization. I don’t believe there is a third “preferred “ level of citizenship given to those who are born here of parents who are US citizens.

Frankly, this is a silly debate, as no one contends that Obama, Cruz or Rubio are imported rulers. It reminds me of “Constitutionalist” arguments in CA that the CA penal code is invalid because CA if a Republic. They have their “Constitutional” arguments, drawn from selected 18th and 19th century writings and quotes from cases. Pure nonsense.

[Bidimus1]

You are quite incorrect, in that laws after 1790 excludes statement natural born citizen. Is a perilous thing to interpret law by was said at times it is a terribly dangerous thing to try to interpret it by what is not said. Only the 1790 contains the phrase natural born citizen it is the only definition of it ever put into law and it was by the first Congress therefore it is the most dispositive as to the meaning and intent of the founders.
Dictated with Google Voice.

[patlin]

Why did the SCOTUS overturn the Pollack case of 1895? What grievous error did the court make in their ruling in that case that caused damage to the federal governments right to lay & collect duties, imposts and excise taxes under A1,S8 of the US Constitution in order for the federal government to be self supporting?