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

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."

Yes. I believe that everybody born in the USA s a “natural born citizen”. Some have pointed out that the USA and Canada are the only countries which confer citizenship based upon birth. It may turn out to be a silly rule - one that worked well in the 19th century but not now, and some may want to change it. But, as things stand now, children of “dreamers” can be POTUS.

I believe that this would be the holding of the USSC, were the issue presented to the Court today.

Yes. I believe that everybody born in the USA s a â€œnatural born citizenâ€. Some have pointed out that the USA and Canada are the only countries which confer citizenship based upon birth. It may turn out to be a silly rule - one that worked well in the 19th century but not now, and some may want to change it. But, as things stand now, children of â€œdreamersâ€ can be POTUS.

I believe that this would be the holding of the USSC, were the issue presented to the Court today.

Thanks for the response. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules..regards.

You obviously didn’t watch the video. The lawyer explains that the first generation of presidents had to , of course, exclude themselves from the “natural born citizen” clause, hence they added “or a citizen of the USA...AT THE TIME of the writing of The Constitution. The following generation would be bound by the Natural Born clause. She very clearly explained this, so obviously you did not watch it.

I’m glad you were out having fun at the range. I would beg to disagree on the 1790 Act since the title of the 1795 Act included the language “Repeal of the 1790 act”. That basically erases the earlier act except to provide a basis to analyze what part of it was deemed wrong and required repeal.

The omission of inclusion of NBC is the major significant change in the 1795 Law compared to 1790 and therefore it is clear that the intent of the revision and repeal was to void that section because it was not the intention of the legislators to have that definition stand.

In 1789 when the Constitution was ratified, according to US law of the time, Rubio would have been a Cuban until his father naturalized, which Rubio’s father didn’t even apply for US citizenship until 4 years after Rubio was born. Rubio was born a native inhabitant, not a native citizen. (James Kent, Commentaries on the Constitution) Citizenship is a political attribute, all others are either alien residents or simply inhabitants.

I agree with you on the WKA case. I have read it several times and what is always ignored in the reading of the events that lead to the case being filed is the fact that WKA had renounced his Chinese citizenship as part of his receiving a US passport. At his coming of age, WKA elected to choose attach his allegiance to the US, just as the law of the time required him to do. Upon his return, his passport was rejected and he was refused re-entry back into the states. It is these tiny overlooked details that tell us that while WKA’s birth in the us made him a native, not all natives are citizens.

And yes, Elk v. Wilkins was a post 14th case, the fact is, Gray established that in fact, A1 & A2 are the only two paths to citizenship and that is why ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ was added to the 14th. The 14th was a clarification of what the Constitution already said, it was nothing new. Just as the 16th Amendment is a clarification of the A1,S8 taxing power of Congress as the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power of taxation. And yet today, the vast majority of the American citizenry, Congress included, are absolutely ignorant of this fact. If one is not engaged in A1 federal activities, they are not subject to the excise taxes therein, as the SCOTUS also ruled in the same case, that the ‘income tax’ is an excise tax.

Now as to the subject of natural born. What happens when a child is born abroad and the country does not recognize children born there to foreigners as citizens, therefore, they do not issue birth certificates to those children. Would not those children be considered NBC as at birth since they owed no allegiance to any foreign nation?

-- Now as to the subject of natural born. What happens when a child is born abroad and the country does not recognize children born there to foreigners as citizens, therefore, they do not issue birth certificates to those children. --

I would think that a birth certificate would issue, regardless. Birth is a vital statistic. It is not determinative of citizenship (see, e.g., royalty, diplomats), but they are indicative and generally considered determinative of birth. Hawaii notwithstanding.

At any rate, with regard to citizenship, what would happen is operation of US statutory law.

An interesting historical example: Displaced in the D.R., by Rachel Nolan | Harper's Magazine | May 2015. How the Dominican Republic reversed "anchor baby" in their country.

I also notice you cherry picked out of Blackstone

I didn't cherry pick, I was simply quoting from the Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory article written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, "Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause"

Got a problem, take it up with Prof. Solum. As far as Blackstone, you obviously haven't read Wilson's works very closely because for a guy who helped pen the Declaration as well as serving as one of the committee of 5 that drafted the Constitution & without Wilson's legal expertise & influence, Pennsylvania wouldn't have ratified the Constitution, Wilson is far more critical of Blackstone that what I wrote. Blackstone was a great jurist, however, he was a jurist of and ardent support of feudal law and to quote him, Blackstone said, "The king is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness".

And so what have I lied about? I have presented facts, however, I have not lied.

-- And yes, Elk v. Wilkins was a post 14th case, the fact is, Gray established that in fact, A1 & A2 are the only two paths to citizenship and that is why 'subject to the jurisdiction' was added to the 14th. The 14th was a clarification of what the Constitution already said, it was nothing new. --

The first contention appears to be nonsense, unless you mean something other than what you wrote. The words "and subject to the jurisdiction" were in the 14th amendment before the Elk v. Wilkins case was decided, so the Elk v. Wilkins case can't be a reason (why) for adding the phrase to the 14th amendment.

That second contention is an unconventional position, contradicted by numerous precedents as well as by the record of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and debates surrounding proposition of the 14th amendment.

Before the 14th amendment, citizenship was controlled by 1) state laws conferring or recognizing (state) citizenship to some (but not all) persons born or residing there, and 2) to Congressional Acts relating to naturalization. Before the 14th amendment, being "born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" did not necessarily establish citizenship in the US. There are several cases that illustrate this, including Dred Scott. Before the 14th amendment was ratified, citizenship in the US was determined with reference to Art IV, Sec. 2 of the US constitution, which in turn points to state authority.

That is an interesting story, especially that part “Until 2010, the Dominican constitution guaranteed jus soli, a right that grants citizenship to anyone born in the territory of a state,”.

Sad, but then, when someone breaks the law, there are consequences and all to often the consequences fall upon the innocent.

Now as to the issuance of a birth certificate. It was a few weeks ago and someone responded to one of my comments that her daughter does not have a birth certificate, all she has is a CRBA because the foreign country her daughter was born in, does not issue birth certificates to children born to aliens in their country. I understand it was quite a process and took quite some time for the US Embassy to issue the CRBA and so far, the CRBA has been accepted as a valid substitute for a birth certificate here in the US.

You obviously didnâ€™t watch the video. The lawyer explains that the first generation of presidents had to , of course, exclude themselves from the â€œnatural born citizenâ€ clause, hence they added â€œor a citizen of the USA...AT THE TIME of the writing of The Constitution. The following generation would be bound by the Natural Born clause. She very clearly explained this, so obviously you did not watch it.

The problem with this logic, is that you can't apply the "..at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.." test to just the ".. citizen of the United States.." qualifier. If you are going to apply it with that meaning, it has to apply to both "..a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States," Like I said: punctuation means something.

If we were to apply your logic to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then we would not have a right to keep and bear arms unless we were militia members. Notice the placement of the commas:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For someone who “supposedly” has a legal education, you sure like to ignore the fact that at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution until 1902, the United States did not issue birth certificates. Births were recorded in family bibles and on census records. So is anyone is ‘blowing smoke’ it is you, trying to deny the fact that the 14th Amendment added no new path to citizenship other than what was already stated in A.1 & A.2. On the census records, if the father was listed as an alien, so too were his wife & children.

So you can dispense with all your legalese smoke & mirror obfuscations that have you so blinded that you failed to actually see that I actually questioned why you were accusing me. No, in your haste to put forth, “because I supposedly have a degree and you do not, then you can't possibly be right & me be mistaken”, you failed to apply your own standards you hold me to, to yourself.

Good Bye!

-- you failed to apply your own standards you hold me to, to yourself. --

Only as far as you know. I have written about the misleading Blackstone cite, but even if I hadn't, it is covered not only in Blackstone, but also in critiques of the recent Katyal/Clement article. This material is easy to find.

I grow weary of the repetition, and by my own admission, simply lack the patience.

If you bother to read my "smoke up the ass" remark, you will see that it was conditional. That IF you had a legal education, I would take your misleading Blackstone cite as blowing smoke up my ass. You had just previously admitted you don't have a legal education, so the remark didn't even apply to you, and I knew that at the time I composed the remark. If you had an honest curiosity, you would wonder what was misleading about the cherry-picked cite, and would focus on that rather than on what you mistook as an insult.

That it was repealed and no new standard for NBC leaves the only statement on the issue by the founders in the 1790

Hints, sighs and portents and the such are legerdemain of the left roe v wade etc...

It seems that the “birther” side of he argument is that due to a lack of definition we should use English common law (that acutely cording to black stone makes Cruz natural born) or maybe a Swiss philosopher or a roman consul etc..

Where the FOUNDERS gave us the meaning as they understood it in 1790.

The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words. Justice Scalia.

Thus the only TEXT that the founders gave us that states what NBC mean is 1790. The TEXT of later laws does not. One should not create meaning where the text is silent.

I enjoy our discussion but I do not agree with your conclusion. You can’t look to a Law that has been repealed to justify opinion because it was repealed purposefully as incorrect. I think there is much more support for a citizen born of citizens in the USA within the correspondence of the founders and legal opinions of the early courts and congress.

All of English law was repealed buy the adoption of the constitution in yet many will purport that it has standing to override the TEXT of the founders.

I have looked there is no NBC ruling in the early courts, if you know of one I would be happy to read it.

What 3rd class of citizen is Mr Cruz then if I may ask you ?

He was not Naturalized
He is a US Citizen.

so what is he ? Please if possible site statute or case law.

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.