Posted on 04/10/2016 7:35:25 PM PDT by Strac6
At the outset, let me assure all the Trump supporters, the Cruz supporters, the Kasich supporters and anyone else interested in the outcome of the Republican presidential primary that this article is not written with the intent to help or hurt any candidate. It is simply a dose of reality in an often confused political knife fight.
In trying to advance the case that Sen. Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States because he was born in Canada, the Trump forces are on what is undoubtably a fool’s errand. I’m not going to take the time here explaining the legalities of United States Code 1401 and related statutes, nor the difference between a “natural born citizen” and a “native born citizen,” or how some Supreme Court decision of 114 years ago is not applicable today or any of the other legal arguments some Trump supporters try to advance…. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT!
The reality is that the “citizenship’ issue may be a well-laid Cruz trap.
The problem with all these “Sen. Cruz is ineligible” arguments is that none of them have advanced in the courts. On every question of when a presidential candidate was not a native born citizen, but was a natural born citizen under the law, the courts have always decided in favor of the candidate. As an example, Sen. McCain was born in Panama while his father served there in the Navy, George Romney was born in Mexico to American citizen Mormon missionaries, and other presidential candidates have not been native born.
If there was any validity to these arguments, three things would be happening. First, well-founded and well-funded law teams PAID FOR BY OTHER CANDIDATES would be advancing the matter through the courts. Secondly, other candidates than Trump would be screaming the issue from the rooftops, finally, and most importantly, the serious money donors that contribute heavily to the presidential campaigns would’ve abandoned Cruz a long time ago.
Reality check: Even Trump rarely mentions the issue any longer.
But there is a real danger to the Trump supporters in trying to concentrate on the citizenship issue, regardless if it is real or not. By concentrating their efforts on this, they are wasting time and effort they could spend in other ways to advance Mr. Trump. Ted Cruz is far from the perfect presidential candidate, but by devoting time and energy to the citizenship issue, Trump supporters are missing dozens of opportunities to attack him on other issues.
More importantly, I’m sure some senior Cruz supporters are glad Trump supporters are concentrating on the citizenship issue, because there is a natural tendency among voters, that when one line of attack is proved to be false or foolish, the candidates other lines of attack tend to go down with it.
The classic example of this was the 2004 George W. Bush reelection campaign. You’ll remember that CBS News, in the persona of Dan Rather, highlighted a supposedly huge story that then-Air Force reservist Bush had used his father’s political influence to avoid service in Vietnam. It was a huge story when it ran on CBS, and in fact, it totally overshadowed anything else for days.
But the Bush people were very smart. They knew the story was totally false and they led CBS and Kerry into a huge ambush over it.
You may remember that CBS called the White House asking for a comment or a denial. The WH quietly said, “we’ll get back to you.” The WH didn’t, and the story ran with much hoopla that night.. and for nights afterward.
Bush polls were down.
But simply put, CBS and Dan Rather had put all their eggs in that BS story’s basket.
Various entities around the country, FR leading them, soon started poking holes in the CBS story.
Rather, or more correctly, Rather’s ego led him further down the primrose path of journalistic destruction.
When the story was proved false, Bush ratings went higher than they were before the "story" broke. Bush had "stood up" to Rather... and Bush won.
I won’t go into all the history, but in the end, it cost Rather his job, his reputation even among the liberals, and it cost CBS any semblance of respect that had going into the story.
Bottom line. If you are against Cruz and for Trump, don’t waste your time on this Flat Earth argument. It hurts very badly when the door gets slammed shut on what you thought were facts, and you find you have wasted all your effort on a false hope.
Just ask Dan Rather.
Okay, find them and copy them to this thread.
Lord. A n00b troll. What was your username last time?
And you, strac; are trying shove a s*** sandwich down our throats saying it’s peanut butter and jelly.
And in an insulting and arrogant “I’m the smartest person in the room” manner.
Yes, for you.
Particularly the rule about not signing on with a new username when you are banned.
I disagree. I obsessively read ALL the “birther” threads, both research about 0bunghole, and the natural born citizen issue. I may not be educated or smart in the legal field, but plenty of others on FR were and are, and there is not one atom of doubt that Cruz is not a NBC if his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. If she had become a Canadian citizen, which is a possibility, then he’s not a US citizen of any kind at all.
And Strac’s attitude towards good freepers is consisitently nasty.
Sorry, but Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 is not on point.
It’s all about a NBC losing that status for failing to perform certain acts required to maintain that status after the birth of the NBC.
There is no contention Sen. Cruz failed to perform the required acts.
?
So what was your old FR name?
Hahahahah.
Survey of the Law of Expatriation - Memorandum for the Solicitor General - June 12, 2002
You have asked us for a general survey of the laws governing loss of citizenship, a process known as "expatriation" (also known within the specific context of naturalized citizens as "denaturalization"). ...Under the Court's current jurisprudence, the Naturalization Clause empowers Congress to expatriate U.S. citizens without obtaining their consent, but only with respect to naturalized citizens who fall outside the protection of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Individuals not protected by the Citizenship Clause acquire U.S. citizenship, if at all, solely by an act of Congress enacted pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, and not pursuant to the Constitution itself. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971) (Citizenship Clause does "'not touch[] the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization'") (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898))
All of that is apparent by actually reading the cases, too. NBC cannot lose citizenship, except by volitional act. Bellei cannot be an NBC, or else his loss of citizenship would be afoul of all sorts of cases.
It was essential, in the Bellei case, to find Bellei to have been naturalized. Otherwise it would have been unconstitutional to expatriate him.
It’s very simple. I posted facts on a thread.
Some people don’t just disagree with them, they hate that they are facts.
So they attack the poster.
It reminds me of the old story about the difference between a neurotic and a psychotic... is that the neurotic thinks that 2 + 2 = 5.
The psychotic knows 2 + 2 = 4.... but hates it.
I’m sorry that you find someone who posts facts and history is trying to act like “the smartest person in the room.”
The real question is; why didn’t you post this long ago.
This is neither law nor court decision. It’s one lawyer’s opinion.
In addition, since none of the foundational elements applies in Cruz, why does this matter at all?
It doesn’t.
Even The Donald has stopped making that claim.
Your “facts” have been disproven for years on numerous threads.
All you do is attack people personally.
“Tough issue to address at law.”
I wasn’t speaking from a legal standpoint. I was simply asking if people had considered the ‘foreign-born’ status of Trump’s wife and would opt not to vote for him because of his wife’s ‘foreign-born’ status.
As I have said, I have not heard anyone else mention this. Maybe it is something to consider.
As I said before, one can discern the law by reading the cases. Your position is that an NBC can have his citizenship stripped, without committing a volitional act to have it stripped, and against his will. Cite a case that stands for that proposition. The Yoo piece might be helpful, it cites expatriation cases.
-- In addition, since none of the foundational elements applies in Cruz, why does this matter at all? --
One of the foundational elements is that both Bellei and Cruz are citizens in the first place, and by operation of the same law (since amended in ways that don't affect either Bellei or Cruz getting citizenship in the first place). Whatever kind of citizenship Bellei had, Cruz has.
Nothing in the Constitution says a president’s wife has to be a natural born citizen or even citizen.
Sheesh, clutching at straws, or what?
Oh so wrong.
Cruz has his citizenship, in fact his NBC status, defined by 1401 and/or by other earlier operative law, not some pleading in a totally unrelated case.
End of matter.
If his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. Until all revelant docs are released, no one knows for sure what she was.
Clearly, you are unable to follow logic, and/or you are a dishonest hack. Either way, "End of matter" concur.
I agree. Some would not vote for him because of her foreign-born status. Other might vote for him because she is a beautiful, exotic looking model.
Who knows?
“Sheesh, clutching at straws, or what?”
No, not clutching at straws. I like both Trump and Cruz and would willingly vote for either but NOT Kasich.
I was simply wondering aloud if people would consider his wife’s ‘foreign-born’ status and not vote for him simply because of his wife’s ‘foreign-born’ status.
I feel that is it a valid point to be considered. I usually try to think ‘outside-of-the-box’ and look at all of the ‘angles’.
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.