Cruz: Trump may not be eligible under the birther theories he espouses

posted at 8:41 am on January 15, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

Time Magazine called this the “your mama” response in presidential political debates. Since the entire eligibility issue for Ted Cruz hinges on his mother’s status as a natural-born citizen of the US (thereby making him one despite his birth in Canada), Cruz’ pushback against Trump seems appropriate — if a bit of a reach. Cruz obviously prepared for this moment, and delivered his attack with considerable flair and relish:

Trump, the bombastic billionaire, remains atop the polls nationally but locked in a tight race with Cruz in Iowa. That’s why Trump has been shivving Cruz on his constitutional eligibility, even though most legal scholars consider this another sideshow. Cruz was ready with a rejoinder questioning Trump’s own qualifications.

“At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward,” Cruz said calmly. He had prepared for this moment. After all, he didn’t win national debating championships by happenstance. “But I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on, some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified and, interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified.”

The moment caught Trump by surprise. “Not me!”

Oh, yes, you. A woman born in 1912, in some voters’ minds, might be the thing that finally disqualifies frontrunner Trump from the most powerful office in the land

“Donald’s mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized,” Cruz continued with the calm of a former Supreme Court lawyer, which he is.

“But I was born here. Big difference,” Trump said, trying to set this attack back on track and stretching out the adjective as long as he could. “Big” became a very big word. He knew the clip was going to be a cable news favorite.

“On the issue of citizenship, Donald, I’m not going to use the issue of your mother’s birth against you,” Cruz said. It was a fantastic reminder that no white paper, no policy address can compete in the modern era of political campaigns with the snide dagger stabbed just below a rival’s rib cage.

Watch the clip all the way through to see Cruz’ level of preparation. Trump tries to respond to Cruz’ ridicule of Trump and this issue by bringing up Laurence Tribe as his expert, a move which is known as a fallacy of authority: Trump isn’t making his own legal argument, but simply citing Tribe as an authority. Cruz springs the trap by explaining Tribe’s political affiliation and his support for Hillary Clinton. Cruz practically licked his chops waiting for Trump to slip on that banana peel.

Will this make any difference at all? Eh … doubtful. According to observers who might normally not want to credit Trump, he had a very good night otherwise. Cruz and Marco Rubio reportedly had excellent nights, too. At this stage, the candidates are probably too well adapted to the format — and voters too familiar with the candidates — to expect any real game-changers from the debates. But those who want to see strategy, preparation, and delivery might find themselves more impressed with Cruz.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

No one can deny what New York City political values refers to.

But Ted forgot to include the words City and Political.

Hence the confusion because words mean things.

Anyway Trump does NOT have New York City Political values in the first place.

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM

It makes sense, but I think in the end it will hurt him more than it helps, but we’ll see.

Redstone on January 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM

It will hurt him. However his robocalls went, Iowan’s (or any place) don’t like being portrayed as petty obsessives over another state.

In casual conversation someone might say , once in 10 years, after a vacation in Manhattan, “It’s a nice place to visit but you wouldn’t…” – about NYC – but no one thinks hard about it.
It’s embarrassing for Iowa that they have been dragged into this. Iowa has no natural rivalry with NY.

If Cruz was campaigning in Boston then he would get more from trashing NYC but , still, it would diminish him.

This is the Carson moment for Cruz. Late night shows, SNL , FOX … it’s all NYC and they are going to be bashing Cruz all week.

Cruz ran a great campaign up until… this will be a lesson for consultants for decades. A presidential candidate should never target, by name , a specific region for abuse. Whoever came up with this strategy f’d up.

BoxHead1 on January 15, 2016 at 11:40 AM

Maria Bartiromo was astonished: “But I live in New York City ! ”

That’s right, Maria. Suck it down.

Younggod on January 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM

That’s exactly why this is an “issue.” Trump called Iowans stupid and the media didn’t blink because they are all liberal east coast snobs who happen to hold that same opinion. But when somebody questions NYC values- well that’s offensive only because that is where the MSM lives.

Happy Nomad on January 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM

It’s amazing how Cruz supporters just make stuff up to defend their guy. And to attack Trump as well.

fossten on January 15, 2016 at 11:25 AM

You know things aren’t going well when a candidate puts himself in the “what I really meant to say was” splanin’ mode.

whatcat on January 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM

John McCain, while born a citizen by statute, is not a natural born citizen of the U.S., and was not eligible to hold the office of POTUS.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 10:31 AM

Geography of where you are born does not determine your “natural born” status.

If so, what are the children born on ships called? Atlantians? Pacifico’s?

All of the children born overseas to service men, not eligible?

Good grief, idiocy abounds…

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 11:42 AM

I got a Bishop. Take that. unless bmore pilfers it again.

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 11:42 AM

see Sodom, Gomorrah

Younggod on January 15, 2016 at 11:11 AM

What’s ironic is that Cruz and the others are really more “New York” candidates than Trump is, since they are all mostly owned by Wall Street.

Trump isn’t popular with those donors, since he is against things like mass immigration and Obamatrade (unlike Ted).

Cruz knows that many of his supporters are not thinking it through, he can go “New York City? They don’t wear cowboy hats over there, they don’t have our values” and his base of voters will eat it up, ignoring the more important issues.

Redstone on January 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM

Younggod on January 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM

That’s exactly why this is an “issue.” Trump called Iowans stupid and the media didn’t blink because they are all liberal east coast snobs who happen to hold that same opinion. But when somebody questions NYC values- well that’s offensive only because that is where the MSM lives.

Happy Nomad on January 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM

when Trump called Iowans idiots, it was all over the place. How do you think you heard about it?

Stop whining, for goodness sake. It’s annoying and it makes you look wimpish.

urban elitist on January 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM

This is not correct, nor it would ever be viewed as correct by any court in the land.

NotCoach on January 15, 2016 at 11:35 AM

Tells you a lot about the deficiency in our courts and judges!

dominigan on January 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM

I see you put a question mark after your ad hominem attack, because you aren’t certain a) he’s a Hillary supporter and b) that’s relevant anyway, because an expert is an expert regardless of their politics. So you smear Tribe but you do it weakly, out of cowardice. Thanks for playing though.

fossten on January 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM

Actually, I wa astonished Tribe would use such an argument to disqualify a presidential candidate. I really believe the crux of the issue lies with verification of Cruz’s mother’s citizenship.

Tribe’s analysis of the Constitution is usually very thoughtful and intelligent, but not without bias. If I do have an issue, it is how he addresses the eligibility of Cruz without taking a hard look at the current president.

If you do not wish to debate the matter intelligently, that is your perogative. This is simply my observation and analysis. Nor is this an attempt to smear Tribe. If anyone is acting out of cowardice, it is your your attempt and making at personal attack upon my observations.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM

Well no doubt, Trump was offended, NY has and is his political values and he should be defensive of them.

That is what he believes and is tuned into, he should defend NY politics.

If he thinks Bloomberg and the city of NY who supports him, represents his values, he has every right to fight for them.

Trump/Bloomberg…he might consider that ticket, it fits. And he is proud of it.

Good for Donald, defending Bloomberg and NY politics…and historically it fits, being a supporter of Hillary and Schumer.

Trump/Bloomberg…and look at the financial wizardry they bring to the table.

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM

Maybe Ted should have said that Trump has AL Sharpton values.

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 11:48 AM

It’s potentially damaging, and they know it. They need to spin it as best they can. Florida is the key state in the Republican primary and if he isn’t able to compete there, he’s toast.

Doomberg on January 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM

Trump did very well and Marco Rubio gave him an assist (thanks Bachman!) by completely shredding his credibility on Immigration.

Cruz was also hit on the NBC eligibility issue and the fact that he is Canadian. It opened a lot of people’s eyes last night since 50% of Iowans don’t know Cruz was born outside of the US. Trump successfully sowed doubt, and Cruz confirmed, that he doesn’t take it seriously that the democrats will use the NBC requirement to try and disqualify him.

And then there was that painful explanation of his attacking the voters of New York. It was a scene to watch, just sooooo bad.

NWConservative on January 15, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Cruz knows that many of his supporters are not thinking it through, he can go “New York City? They don’t wear cowboy hats over there, they don’t have our values” and his base of voters will eat it up, ignoring the more important issues.

Redstone on January 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM

New York City???!!!

whatcat on January 15, 2016 at 11:49 AM

Maybe Ted should have said that Trump has Woody Allen values.

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM

Trump/Bloomberg…he might consider that ticket, it fits. And he is proud of it.

Good for Donald, defending Bloomberg and NY politics…and historically it fits, being a supporter of Hillary and Schumer.

Trump/Bloomberg…and look at the financial wizardry they bring to the table.

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM

I don’t think highly of Trump, not at all, but if he is the Republican candidate, I am voting for him, and I am campaigning for him.

right2bright on December 16, 2015 at 3:26 PM

r2b the sellout…hates NY values, but will vote for them because party first, country second. What’s it like having weak ass principles?

fossten on January 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM

Geography of where you are born does not determine your “natural born” status.

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 11:42 AM

Tell it to Blackstone:

Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.

Tell it to Vattel:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

the dog looked at me strangely…

right2bright on January 14, 2016 at 8:16 AM

Joseph K on January 15, 2016 at 11:51 AM

Maybe Ted should have said that Trump has Woody Allen values.

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM

He did.

Joseph K on January 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM

Maybe Ted should have said Trump has Madonna values. She lived in NYC.

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM

Cruz doesn’t want to be President of all the people, just those he likes.

fossten on January 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM

Yes, just like Obama. He’s been running his entire Senate career for President, just like Obama. He’s not a fan of the Constitutional eligibility requirements either, just like Obama. He likes to hear himself talk, smugly, just like Obama.

NWConservative on January 15, 2016 at 11:53 AM

Cruz knows that many of his supporters are not thinking it through, he can go “New York City? They don’t wear cowboy hats over there, they don’t have our values” and his base of voters will eat it up, ignoring the more important issues.

Redstone on January 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM


Don’t wear cowboy hats in New York City
? Warning: not safe for lunch.

urban elitist on January 15, 2016 at 11:53 AM

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 11:42 AM

If a child is born a citizen or subject of another country, due to either birth location or citizenship/subjecthood of either parent, then the child is not a “natural” born citizen of the United States, even if they are also born a citizen of the United States.

International waters are not territory of a foreign nation.

Good grief, idiocy abounds…

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM

Actually, I wa astonished Tribe would use such an argument to disqualify a presidential candidate. I really believe the crux of the issue lies with verification of Cruz’s mother’s citizenship.

Tribe’s analysis of the Constitution is usually very thoughtful and intelligent, but not without bias. If I do have an issue, it is how he addresses the eligibility of Cruz without taking a hard look at the current president.

If you do not wish to debate the matter intelligently, that is your perogative. This is simply my observation and analysis. Nor is this an attempt to smear Tribe. If anyone is acting out of cowardice, it is your your attempt and making at personal attack upon my observations.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM

Nobody is without bias. That’s the problem. If you disqualify everyone with a bias, that DQ’s everyone. Nobody can make a decision. Your argument is invalid because, when taken to its logical conclusion, it paralyzes the issue from being resolved.

As far as your butthurt over smearing Tribe, here’s my advice. If you have something to say, say it. Don’t p*ssyfoot around. Your little question mark weakened your whole argument. But if you’re going to make an accusation, you’d better back it up with documentation or else you have no credibility.

That ‘intelligent’ enough for ya, skippy?

fossten on January 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM

Maybe Ted should have said that Trump has AL Sharpton values.

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Bad Puppy.

That wouldn’t be true, either. Al Sharpton has no values.

I would say that Ted should have attempted to shift the debate toward policy, but then there would have been shrieks of “Cruz won’t answer the birther issue. He’s skeert.”

I guess Trump holds, you know, the Trump card.

hillbillyjim on January 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM

BoxHead1 on January 15, 2016 at 11:40 AM

It’s a nothing burger. It moves the dial almost no where. It hurts Cruz in NYC, in a state the dems will win without barely campaigning.

Everybody else hates NYC and could care less, the pile ons by people like Cuomo just helps Cruz.

I’m just waiting to see if Rubio can hang on until Jeb finally calls it quits. If Jeb hangs around this will become a two man race much more quickly than I could have ever imagined.

Zomcon JEM on January 15, 2016 at 11:55 AM

John Wayne Gacy lived in Iowa for a while. Just sayin –

BoxHead1 on January 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM

It’s a nothing burger. It moves the dial almost no where. It hurts Cruz in NYC, in a state the dems will win without barely campaigning.

Zomcon JEM on January 15, 2016 at 11:55 AM

If Trump is the nominee the Dems will be forced have to campaign in the NYC, of all places. And even then, I wouldn’t bet a farm on them winning the state.

Rix on January 15, 2016 at 11:58 AM

If a child is born a citizen or subject of another country, due to either birth location or citizenship/subjecthood of either parent, then the child is not a “natural” born citizen of the United States, even if they are also born a citizen of the United States.

International waters are not territory of a foreign nation.

Good grief, idiocy abounds…

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM

While I agree with you in the spirit of the letter of the Constitution, it has been Congress that has usurped the “definition” of natural born citizen.

Please don’t think me an idiot, as I don’t think of you as one.

The U.S. recognizes only two forms of citizen, those who are natural born via Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli, and those who become naturalized.

You are correct that there is an issue with international waters, but the key would be who the parents in this case. IF one is an American citizen, the right of natural born citizen applies.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 12:02 PM

It’s a nothing burger.

Zomcon JEM on January 15, 2016 at 11:55 AM

I disagree. You underestimate the effect of pop culture.
We’ll see in next week’s polls.
My bet is that Iowan’s predisposed to Cruz don’t want to be dragged into this. They were not looking to pick this fight. And NYC is taking it personally.
Look at the NYers and ex NYers on this blog.
It’s petty stuff and it leaves a bad taste.
Let’s check in after next week. I’m predicting Cruz loses around 5 points.

BoxHead1 on January 15, 2016 at 12:02 PM

John Wayne Gacy lived in Iowa for a while. Just sayin –

BoxHead1 on January 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM

LOL. Maybe Ted will say Trump has John Wayne values and forget to say Gracy like he forgot to say city and Political.

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 12:02 PM

In Iowa.

BoxHead1 on January 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM

Joseph K on January 15, 2016 at 11:51 AM

I don’t think Cruz will be asking you for constitutional advice…but good job Googling.

But the obsession with me, it’s funny for awhile, but becomes unnerving…you keep posting the same thing, the time you spend researching what I have posted is a bit strange, that’s for sure.

And I have to admit, I go back and think, have I revealed too much of where I live, because you and that other poster fosttenn or something, are so obsessed with me…like little girls that are ignored.

I wish you well…in the clinical sense, I really do. Hope you get over the obsession.

I know you and the other have gone back years to find posts, it is so darn strange, hard to imagine someone so obsessed…but God help you if you ever show up at my house…pretty sure I have not given away too much…only a couple of people on here have I personally contacted.

Just for that reason…obsession gets out of hand, and the obsessed never quite understand, they justify their actions.

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 12:06 PM

Cruz is going for the “true conservative” voters.

Trump is going for the “American” voters.

Guess which one there are more of in this country.

Like it or not, Cruz supporters — Cruz killed his chances with his “NY values” comment — yes, he *meant* “liberal” but on 9/11 people weren’t thinking of politics; they were thinking “fellow Americans.” Trump owned it.

Cruz is DOA — and he did it to himself.

Dark Star on January 15, 2016 at 12:06 PM

Good grief, idiocy abounds…

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM

Indeed, it does.

The laws of another country are irrelevant on this point. If Canada decides tomorrow that all persons born in North America are Canadian citizens then by your standard no one born after tomorrow would ever be a natural born citizen. Location of birth is not the standard. The standard is American citizenship at birth.

NotCoach on January 15, 2016 at 12:07 PM

But those who want to see strategy, preparation, and delivery might find themselves more impressed with Cruz.

Or they might decide that Cruz, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, has lawyer values.

Seth Halpern on January 15, 2016 at 12:08 PM

As far as your butthurt over smearing Tribe, here’s my advice. If you have something to say, say it. Don’t p*ssyfoot around. Your little question mark weakened your whole argument. But if you’re going to make an accusation, you’d better back it up with documentation or else you have no credibility.

That ‘intelligent’ enough for ya, skippy?

fossten on January 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM

Sorry, I don’t see you making a valid point here. You can back off the attacks now, since I see it is more an issue of anyone you disagree with is the target of your prejudices.

If you think Tribe isn’t being biased, say so and move on. In the case of a civil dispute, you are correct on the burden of proof. I don’t know who Tribe is voting for, and it is up to me to provide that proof.

So let’s debate, but I will not resort to going unhinged on you just because I may have a disagreement on a point whether it be major or minor.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 12:09 PM

Jazz Shaw is from upstate New York. We must formulate a plan to get him. Heck AP is in NY City. The actual city part. So is his cat. Imagine the values his cat has. Does Ted know about this?

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 12:10 PM

If a child is born a citizen or subject of another country, due to either birth location or citizenship/subjecthood of either parent, then the child is not a “natural” born citizen of the United States, even if they are also born a citizen of the United States.

International waters are not territory of a foreign nation.

Good grief, idiocy abounds…

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM

So, Cruz mom was a citizen of the U.S…What you are saying that even if the parents were divorced…really, you don’t make much sense.

And you are right, international waters are not territory, so they have no country?

Can you point to the link that says “either parent”…thanks, that will clear it up.

If it’s there in the Constitution, you are correct, if not, you are wrong.

That should take you about 5 minutes to clear up…

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 12:10 PM

Cruz make Trump his Beeech yet again! Cruz 2016!!

Mimzey on January 15, 2016 at 12:11 PM

Indeed, it does.

The laws of another country are irrelevant on this point. If Canada decides tomorrow that all persons born in North America are Canadian citizens then by your standard no one born after tomorrow would ever be a natural born citizen. Location of birth is not the standard. The standard is American citizenship at birth.

NotCoach on January 15, 2016 at 12:07 PM

Of course, look at all of the births from American parents overseas…

The pretzel logic is amazing…but it will soon be put to rest with my challenge.

When we see the language “both parents need to be citizens, or “if either parent is not”…then we will know.

Itguy is researching it now, and will have the answer shortly…since he is so sure, it was probably right on his desktop.

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 12:02 PM

I was echoing right2bright’s choice of words back to them.

Good grief, idiocy abounds…

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 11:42 AM

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 12:17 PM

When we see the language “both parents need to be citizens, or “if either parent is not”…then we will know.

Itguy is researching it now, and will have the answer shortly…since he is so sure, it was probably right on his desktop.

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM

I would have preferred it be to two American parents (which would have disqualified Cruz) but that ship sailed in the ’80’s when a democrat majority congress chose to change the natural born requirement to one parent.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 12:18 PM

Jazz Shaw is from upstate New York. We must formulate a plan to get him. Heck AP is in NY City. The actual city part. So is his cat. Imagine the values his cat has. Does Ted know about this?

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 12:10 PM

A lot of good people are under the regime of crap values. New York..Di Blasio..gun grabber Bloomberg..”Don’t say that word..I’m offended”..”Thats, too much salt..that should be illegal”…”No guns here, redneck”…New York values. Gathering together during massive tragedies?..human values.
This correlation should be obvious. Cruz’s comment was valid.
Not that complicated.

Mimzey on January 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM

right2bright,

Again, Vattel explained natural born citizens, as defined by the law of nature, in

THE LAW OF NATIONS
OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

“natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

George Washington checked out that very book from the New York Society Library and there is no record of him ever returning it.

Vattel’s terminology was echoed by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett.

A natural born citizen is naturally a citizen of 1 and only 1 country. No other country can claim authority or influence over that child based on either birth location or citizenship/subjecthood of the father or mother.

Each word has meaning, and of the following 3 groups:
A) citizen
B) born citizen
C) natural born citizen

B is a subset of A, and C is a subset of B.

Not all citizens are born citizens. (Everyone agrees on that.)

And not all born citizens are natural born citizens. You can’t just pretend that the word “natural” has no meaning.

Others can be born citizens by statute while not being “natural-born citizens… born in the country, of parents who are citizens”.

Anyone born a U.S. citizen, but also born a citizen or subject of another country (like Cruz, who was born with Canadian citizenship, and Obama, whose 2008 campaign web site admitted that he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject) is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM

I was echoing right2bright’s choice of words back to them.

Okay thanks. I missed that since the screen is scrolling badly.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM

Jazz Shaw is from upstate New York. We must formulate a plan to get him. Heck AP is in NY City. The actual city part. So is his cat. Imagine the values his cat has. Does Ted know about this?

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 12:10 PM

I’ve got this theory that Allahpundit is behind this whole Trump/Cruz kerfuffle. It’s a conspiracy to drive up click counts, and AP is holding Top Secret Info on Trump and Cruz so they have to play the game.

Oh, and BTW, R2B is going all martyr again.

It is the end of the world, I fear.

P.S. (The cat is a sock puppet, but it doesn’t say anything to avoid exposure.)

hillbillyjim on January 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM

Oh, puhleeeeeeze.

The stench of the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Remember 8 years ago?

The birthers said that Barry was born in Kenya.

Barry said he was born in Hawaii.

Shrillary should now say “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

There is no doubt that Teddie was born outside the U.S.

Why didn’t Barry say “Maybe I was born in Kenya, but so what? My mom was a U.S citizen.”?

corona79 on January 15, 2016 at 12:21 PM

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM

So with all that…what you say is not in the constitution…right?

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 12:21 PM

George Washington checked out that very book from the New York Society Library and there is no record of him ever returning it.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM

Yeah, that’s a great argument for the supreme court…someone didn’t return a book.

Just a little question…how many books did Washington no return?

Were there any others?

See how foolish throwing that garbage in…

And even if it meant something…was that the only quote in the book? Could he have been more interested in something else?

Of course you don’t know that, you Googled some website that took that quote out of context, and highlighted it…

Good grief…sorry but I don’t cruise the kooky websites you do.

He didn’t return a book…oh my, what an argument…

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 12:27 PM

Birth in Canada[edit]
In general, everyone born in Canada from 1947 or later acquires Canadian citizenship at birth. In one 2008 case, a girl born to a Ugandan mother aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Boston was deemed a Canadian citizen for customs purposes because she was born over Canada’s airspace.[7]

The only exceptions concern children born to diplomats, where additional requirements apply.

Section 3(2) of the current act states that Canadian citizenship is not granted to a child born in Canada if either parent was a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative at the time of birth and neither parent was a Canadian citizen or Canadian permanent resident.[8]

However, should the immigration status of the parents of such persons change to permanent resident, a child may be granted citizenship immediately, or when the parents acquire citizenship through naturalization, at the discretion of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

In 2012, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney proposed to modify the jus soli birthright citizenship recognised in Canadian law as a means of discouraging birth tourism,[9] most likely by requiring at least one of the parents be resident in Canada.[10]

So ITGuy’s argument that Cruz is a Canadian citizen would apply ( according to Wikipedia, God help us), but the case he is referring to would apply if Congress’ definition gets overturned by the Supremes, since the act was passed in the 1980’s and Happerstat happened earlier.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 12:27 PM

Nice spin, blaming the target. He shouldn’t have said it because it wasn’t presidential.

fossten on January 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM

For the record, there is no “blame” in recounting repeated observations and experiences. Your comments are often right on point, but here, don’t assign words I didn’t say that were qualified to say something entirely different.

As stated there and in another post [referenced], the willingness to get on a high horse over what turn out to be essential truths one does not like and/or not perfectly stated is a big problem out there – and is typical of cheap political rhetoric.

I’ve experienced such tendencies – to the point of verbal, then physical violence – by those completely convinced that no one else had any right but to their own views and that over decades of living elsewhere have rarely, if ever, happened in any similar fashion – except from select NYorkers who’d moved there.

My point was the categorically inept calling someone “stupid” or worse for what here demonstrably [and historically] contained more than a grain of truth. “The Stupid” is in not tolerating the fact that everyone makes mistakes, and that cherry picking motivations about which one cannot really know from an imperfect statement, then acting as if it were some kind of apocalyptic, deliberate insult, is what is here moronic – but also a quintessential NYC [lib] reaction. A real stompy foot episode.

As I said, were I one of the many “good” New Yorkers, I’d have to admit that on numerous issues, including the General Nanny State and Amendment 2, yeah, we often allow ourselves to appear represented by a particularly bad set of values.

RL on January 15, 2016 at 12:37 PM

Our nation was founded with the document which begins:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Laws of Nature mattered to our Founders.

John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, had copies of Vattel’s works in his personal library, and quoted from them on multiple occasions. Here is an excerpt from one of Jay’s letters to Washington… this one being from 28 August 1790:

… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is due to all Nations with whom a State is at Peace, and that this …

And it was John Jay who influenced Article II Section 1 when he wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25th, 1787:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The Founders’ intent was to ensure that the Commander in Chief did not have birth ties to a foreign nation.

Vattel’s work includes:

THE LAW OF NATIONS
OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

Ted Cruz was born a dual citizen of the USA and Canada. He was born with ties to a foreign nation. As much as I like Ted Cruz’s stand on a host of issues, I firmly believe first Chief Justice John Jay and first President George Washington would have found a person in his situation to be ineligible to hold the office of Commander in Chief unless they met the “grandfather clause” of Article II Section 1 (shown in bold below):

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

George Washington was a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, and was absolutely eligible to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief.

Since no one alive today was a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, they must be a natural born citizen (born free of foreign citizenship/subjecthood) in order to be eligible to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 12:37 PM

Maria Bartiromo was astonished: “But I live in New York City ! ”

That’s right, Maria. Suck it down.

Younggod on January 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM

That’s exactly why this is an “issue.” Trump called Iowans stupid and the media didn’t blink because they are all liberal east coast snobs who happen to hold that same opinion. But when somebody questions NYC values- well that’s offensive only because that is where the MSM lives.

Happy Nomad on January 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM

The irony of Trump complaining about “insulting millions of people” must be his surprise that there was any competition to his stream of insults.

widget on January 15, 2016 at 12:38 PM

Millions of people outside NYC felt the sting of 9/11, not just New Yorkers. And millions of Americans rushed to NYC to help them recover. Those were not NYC values that were exhibited during the aftermath of some desert hermit’s plan to terrorize us. Those were AMERICAN values. And I am insulted that Trump took that route in that manner.

Trump is stung by Cruz saying, “I don’t know of many conservatives who come from Manhattan. Just saying”. And Trump is insulted?! So as a defense, Trump brings up the name of William Buckley Jr as his example of a conservative from Manhattan. Does “The Donald” really mean to compare himself to Bill Buckley?

Ok, let’s see.

Buckley never supported abortion, single payer, donated to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Charlie Rangel, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and the Democrat Senatorial Committee, along with other left wingers.
Buckley never advocated a wealth tax on the assets of individuals, and ALWAYS supported individual freedom and property rights, spoke against eminante domain and was never on the other side, he was never a democrat, unlike “The Donald”.

gonnjos on January 15, 2016 at 12:41 PM

The whole problem with the New York values is

1. It’s vague
2. Trump does NOT have NYC political values just because he is from there

It’s not that complicated.

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 12:51 PM

Ted Cruz has Tom Cruz values.

NOT true. But the name connection is suspicious

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 12:54 PM

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 12:37 PM

Well presented, and yes, I agree that is what our forefathers may have intended. But unfortunately, between the illegal actions of the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Courts, we now have this dilemma of what constitutes a natural born citizen and what does not.

Vattel’s work had a major influence, but I don’t think all of his recommendations were followed to the letter, hence the recognition of Jus Sanguinis as being qualified as a natural born citizen applies. Our forefathers were aware that children of American citizens could be born overseas, and that’s where things can get ugly. Like I said, the government recognizes only two types of citizenship, that one is natural born per the Congressional definition (last addressed in the 80’s) and that of foreigners being “naturalized” citizens.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 12:55 PM

Ted Cruz has Tom Cruz values.

NOT true. But the name connection is suspicious

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 12:54 PM

Bad puppy. It’s Tom Cruise. ;)

Misha on January 15, 2016 at 1:01 PM

Misha on January 15, 2016 at 1:01 PM

Haha. You caught me cheating.

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 1:04 PM

It can’t be a straw man argument if it is literally true.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2016 at 11:31 AM

Link it.

fossten on January 15, 2016 at 11:33 AM

I’m surprised at the number of people claiming “no one ever said any such thing.” If you’ve been keeping up with the claims being thrown around about the definition of natural born citizen, then you’ve almost certainly seen a few people espouse the theory that you’re only a natural born citizen if you’re the child of natural born citizens born inside the US.

I guess they want to call it a lie so they can claim Cruz made a straw man argument. But it’s not a straw man argument if it’s true.

Here’s an example of someone arguing exactly this theory that “no one is saying.”

On August 22, 2011, I held oral arguments on the record with respect to the thirteen instant motions. At the hearing, plaintiff STRUNK agreed with the Court that President OBAMA, with the release of his long-form Hawaiian birth certificate, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii [tr., p. 23]. However, plaintiff STRUNK, at tr., pp. 30 – 31, argued that a “natural born citizen,” eligible to run for President of the United States, pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, means that not only the candidate is natural born, but both of the candidate’s parents are natural born.

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2012/2012-ny-slip-op-50614-u.html

The court did not think highly of the argument, and I don’t claim that it’s widely held, but it has been made before.

Cruz completely lied on this. Natural born citizen = born to two citizen parents on the soil. The parents do not have to be natural born themselves. IOW, two naturalized citizen parents are fine. Cruz was arrogant, smug, and just plain WRONG on this issue. Trump’s mother was a naturalized citizen four years prior to his birth in NY.

Aslans Girl on January 15, 2016 at 10:06 AM

Cruz described an argument made by others, which he even identified as “extreme.” How is it a lie? I begin to wonder if people don’t bother listening or reading to anything he said, and just start jumping in outrage.

What?

He highlighted it by presenting an extreme argument that neither Trump nor anyone else has made. If Trump had done that, you’d be calling him a liar.

Criminy, indeed.

JannyMae on January 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM

This is closer to target. Yes, he highlighted an extreme argument. It’s true that Trump didn’t make the argument, but I don’t think you’ll find where Trump made any argument about what constitutes a natural born citizen, so it’s a little hard to read in too much about his failure to make this particular argument.

But saying “nor anyone else has made,” is wrong.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM

SpongePuppy on January 15, 2016 at 12:54 PM

Breaking:

You heard it here first; Cruz the Scientologist!

Or is that Crooz?

I get so confoozed.

hillbillyjim on January 15, 2016 at 1:07 PM

“Donald’s mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized,” Cruz continued with the calm of a former Supreme Court lawyer, which he is.

A parent being naturalized doesn’t make one whit of difference so long as s/he is a citizen at the time of the child’s birth. She was a citizen when Trump was born. Cruz is just being retarded, here, and showing that he has no intention of addressing the eligibility issue in good faith … because he knows that he isn’t eligible.

This is pathetic. I can’t believe that this would pass for any sort of reasonable Constitutional debate on Cruz’s part. It’s just totally retarded. No one – and I mean no one – ever even intimated that parents have to be natural born citizens in order for a child to be a natural born citizen. It’s almost laughable that anyone would raise a strawman like that.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 15, 2016 at 1:09 PM

Yeah, because Trump’s Birther argument worked so well against Obama.

Such a stupid, pointless argument.

Captain Kirock on January 15, 2016 at 1:10 PM

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 12:37 PM

Here is a quote(s) from your Vattel book…

By law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces on change in this particular and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.
…there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of birth, that gives us rights.

Notice it not the place, that has no bearing.

Of course at the time of writing, women had no rights, and could not own property in most of the world, so the rights flowed through only the men…that has obviously been changed.

But Vattel makes it very clear, the place, the geographic, has no bearing on the “rights”…what nature has given him, meaning natural born to a country of his fathers origin…which would translate into a parent for our modern times.

Meanwhile, the book has ten times more space related to war, and commerce between countries, and Washington could have very well been more interested in that…being a business man and leader of a country that needed to trade. And one that was to face war…

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM

None of this matters, since Alberta is actually our 57th state…..

dentarthurdent on January 15, 2016 at 1:12 PM

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2012/2012-ny-slip-op-50614-u.html

The court did not think highly of the argument, and I don’t claim that it’s widely held, but it has been made before.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM

Puh-leeeease.

To grab one stupid argument that some idiot filed and make some claim that it represents any of the actual arguments made by those arguing eligibility over the years is disingenuous and stupid. ANyone can file a suit and argue something about space aliens, if they want. Cruz is sinking to as low a level as possible with this and there is no defense for it. None.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 15, 2016 at 1:15 PM

From a link currently featured on the Drudge Report:

The suit seeks a court definition of the term to clarify whether Cruz — who was born in Canada to an American mother — can or can’t serve if elected.

“This 229-year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Houston attorney Newton B. Schwartz Sr. said in his 28-page complaint. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”

Claiming that “time is of the essence” because of the rapidly approaching Iowa caucuses and March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, Schwartz asked that the case be expedited for resolution by the nation’s highest court as soon as possible.

I hope SCOTUS takes this case.

If they do, I will accept their ruling as final, regardless of outcome.

It is best to get this settled now vs. later.

———

Thought experiment:
If the court were to hold to the Natural Law definition as explained by Vattel, then Obama should be found to be a usurper of the Presidency. In that scenario, I’m not sure whether or not Biden would be considered legitimately elected, since the Electoral College electors who elected him were chosen based on popular votes for the ineligible Barack Obama. If one removes the votes for the ineligible Obama/Biden ticket, then 1) John McCain won the 2008 election and 2) Mitt Romney won the 2012 election. If the Obama/Biden combo were declared invalid, and they didn’t try to go back to the 2008 or 2012 elections, would House Speaker Paul Ryan suddenly rise to POTUS? If, on the other hand, Obama were found ineligible and Biden were allowed to rise to the Presidency, he would instantly become the Democrats’ leading candidate for the Dem nomination. Interesting thought experiment, in my opinion.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 1:15 PM

A parent being naturalized doesn’t make one whit of difference so long as s/he is a citizen at the time of the child’s birth. She was a citizen when Trump was born. Cruz is just being retarded, here, and showing that he has no intention of addressing the eligibility issue in good faith … because he knows that he isn’t eligible.

This is pathetic. I can’t believe that this would pass for any sort of reasonable Constitutional debate on Cruz’s part. It’s just totally retarded. No one – and I mean no one – ever even intimated that parents have to be natural born citizens in order for a child to be a natural born citizen. It’s almost laughable that anyone would raise a strawman like that.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 15, 2016 at 1:09 PM

It was truly pathetic the argument that Cruz brought up.

NWConservative on January 15, 2016 at 1:15 PM

A parent being naturalized doesn’t make one whit of difference so long as s/he is a citizen at the time of the child’s birth. She was a citizen when Trump was born. Cruz is just being retarded, here, and showing that he has no intention of addressing the eligibility issue in good faith … because he knows that he isn’t eligible.

This is pathetic. I can’t believe that this would pass for any sort of reasonable Constitutional debate on Cruz’s part. It’s just totally retarded. No one – and I mean no one – ever even intimated that parents have to be natural born citizens in order for a child to be a natural born citizen. It’s almost laughable that anyone would raise a strawman like that.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 15, 2016 at 1:09 PM

That wasn’t the point of his argument, and no, he wasn’t being retarded bringing it up. Yes, you can have two naturalized citizens give birth and that child be treated as natural born on foreign soil OR you can have two illegals have a child on US soil and be a citizen. I don’t like the latter but that’s how the whole “anchor baby” issue came up in the first place.

Cruz has to address the issue to the voters, and that was one way to do it. I don’t need to be convinced, but he needs to address those voters who may be indecisive on whether he’s eligible or not, however few they may be.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM

Notice it not the place, that has no bearing.

Of course at the time of writing, women had no rights, and could not own property in most of the world, so the rights flowed through only the men…that has obviously been changed.

But Vattel makes it very clear, the place, the geographic, has no bearing on the “rights”…what nature has given him, meaning natural born to a country of his fathers origin…which would translate into a parent for our modern times.

Meanwhile, the book has ten times more space related to war, and commerce between countries, and Washington could have very well been more interested in that…being a business man and leader of a country that needed to trade. And one that was to face war…

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM

So I guess I was wrong after all. Our forefather’s DID follow to the letter Vattel’s recommendations.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 1:23 PM

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM

Good point.

As I said in my most recent comment above, I hope SCOTUS takes this case. If they do, I will accept their ruling as final. It is best to get this settled now vs. later.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 1:25 PM

As I said in my most recent comment above, I hope SCOTUS takes this case. If they do, I will accept their ruling as final. It is best to get this settled now vs. later.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 1:25 PM

Now that a “big deal” has been made…probably best to have it settled once and for all…but quickly, like, right now type quick.

Not sure if they can take this up without the vote from congress…

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 1:37 PM

Cruz has to address the issue to the voters, and that was one way to do it.

he didn’t address anything. He made a mockery of an argument.

I don’t need to be convinced, but he needs to address those voters who may be indecisive on whether he’s eligible or not, however few they may be.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM

He’s not eligible and in this pathetic argument he proposes he’s trying to fight the battle with a scorched-earth strategy to claim that if he isn’t eligible, then pretty much no one is eligible. It’s a stupid argument. It’s a strawman that no one has ever brought up – save that one ridiculous case referenced above. But for anyone who has followed the EXTENSIVE eligibility debates and threads here over the past 8 years they know that no one ever claimed that in their eligibility case.

Cruz, in this retarded strawman argument shows that he is totally unserious, at best. My respect for Cruz has dropped through the floor with this. It is pathetic.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 15, 2016 at 1:37 PM

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2012/2012-ny-slip-op-50614-u.html

The court did not think highly of the argument, and I don’t claim that it’s widely held, but it has been made before.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM

Puh-leeeease.

To grab one stupid argument that some idiot filed and make some claim that it represents any of the actual arguments made by those arguing eligibility over the years is disingenuous and stupid. ANyone can file a suit and argue something about space aliens, if they want. Cruz is sinking to as low a level as possible with this and there is no defense for it. None.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 15, 2016 at 1:15 PM

Cruz didn’t say this was the main argument, or representative. He did specifically say it was one of the more extreme arguments.

Do you really want to claim that this is the only guy who ever made such an argument?

Point is, calling him a liar for saying something true is absurd. Saying he made a straw man argument when he accurately described what he himself called an extreme position is absurd.

And now that it’s clear that this is, in fact, an extreme argument made by some questioning his eligibility, it’s just dishonest to call it a straw man argument.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2016 at 2:07 PM

And now that it’s clear that this is, in fact, an extreme argument made by some questioning his eligibility, it’s just dishonest to call it a straw man argument.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2016 at 2:07 PM

Agreed. The only thing I find absurd here is the ongoing claims that Cruz is ineligible. ITGuy makes a powerful argument in this case, but even he admits this is most likely a SCOTUS issue.

So what is Cruz to do when he DOES qualify (and he knows it) and has found that 24-28% of the voting base questions his eligibility? He has to present a sound argument as to why he qualifies.

Was this an attack on The Donald’s credibility as a candidate. Heck no. This was an illustration of the kind of politics both Cruz and Trump have to deal with.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 2:25 PM

The suit seeks a court definition of the term to clarify whether Cruz — who was born in Canada to an American mother — can or can’t serve if elected.

“This 229-year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Houston attorney Newton B. Schwartz Sr. said in his 28-page complaint. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”

Claiming that “time is of the essence” because of the rapidly approaching Iowa caucuses and March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, Schwartz asked that the case be expedited for resolution by the nation’s highest court as soon as possible.

Newton B. Schwartz is correct that the issue needs to be addressed, but where were others like him 8 years ago? Trying to determine legal precedent during an election year can be bad if the top tier candidate happens to be the subject in question – especially if the ruling goes against the candidate.

I do agree, however, that the issue needs to be laid to rest so that there isn’t another like this that can mar an election.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM

By law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces on change in this particular and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.
…there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of birth, that gives us rights.

Notice it not the place, that has no bearing.

Of course at the time of writing, women had no rights, and could not own property in most of the world, so the rights flowed through only the men…that has obviously been changed.

But Vattel makes it very clear, the place, the geographic, has no bearing on the “rights”…what nature has given him, meaning natural born to a country of his fathers origin…which would translate into a parent for our modern times.

right2bright on January 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM

Cruz’s father is Cuban, and while I’m not 100% sure, I think he was not a U.S. Citizen at the time of Cruz’s birth.

At the time of Vattel, a woman’s citizenship/subjecthood became that of her husband when they married. So, there was no difference between the two parents. As you noted, Vattel said,

By law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights;

By that, both Ted Cruz and Barack Obama are ineligible. Both had Jus Sanguinis through their fathers to countries other than the U.S. In addition, Obama’s Jus Soli claim is based on a forged PDF.

I hold to the belief that the Founders’ understanding of “natural born citizen” required both Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli, but if you go just by Jus Sanguinis, both Cruz and Obama are ineligible. It’s not enough that they had Jus Sanguinis U.S. Citizenship by way of their mothers… the issue is that they had Jus Sanguinis citizenship/subjecthood of another nation by way of their fathers, and Cruz additionally had Jus Soli in Canada.

I think one of the big misunderstandings is that some mistakenly think people like me are saying Cruz is not a U.S. Citizen from birth. He was and is. But he was not EXCLUSIVELY a U.S. Citizen from birth. That is the key issue… did the Founders intend for the “natural born citizen” clause to exclude those who did not meet the conditions of the “grandfather clause” and who were not EXCLUSIVELY a U.S. Citizen from birth?

Can someone who was born with citizenship/subjecthood of a foreign country be allowed to serve as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces?

THAT is the Constitutional question.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 2:50 PM

As I said in my most recent comment above, I hope SCOTUS takes this case. If they do, I will accept their ruling as final. It is best to get this settled now vs. later.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 1:25 PM

That is mighty big of you, especially since that is how it works.

hillbillyjim on January 15, 2016 at 3:14 PM

hillbillyjim on January 15, 2016 at 3:14 PM

Some people would/will continue to argue this even after a SCOTUS ruling, if they don’t agree with the SCOTUS ruling. I’m merely saying that I would not stop with a SCOTUS ruling.

I’ve been wanting them to address this issue for literally the last 8 years. Numerous cases have made it to the SCOTUS docket, but they have yet to grant certiori to any of them. One of the more recent ones:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-9396.htm

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 3:29 PM

Embarrassing typo in my comment above.

I’m merely saying that I would not stop with a SCOTUS ruling.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 3:33 PM

Cruz’s father is Cuban, and while I’m not 100% sure, I think he was not a U.S. Citizen at the time of Cruz’s birth.

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 2:50 PM

He wasn’t, he had a green card that he violated the terms of when he moved to Canada. His required him to maintain a residence in the US.

He didn’t get US citizenship until decades later.

NWConservative on January 15, 2016 at 3:40 PM

The suit seeks a court definition of the term to clarify whether Cruz — who was born in Canada to an American mother — can or can’t serve if elected.

“This 229-year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Houston attorney Newton B. Schwartz Sr. said in his 28-page complaint. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”

Claiming that “time is of the essence” because of the rapidly approaching Iowa caucuses and March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, Schwartz asked that the case be expedited for resolution by the nation’s highest court as soon as possible.

Newton B. Schwartz is correct that the issue needs to be addressed, but where were others like him 8 years ago? Trying to determine legal precedent during an election year can be bad if the top tier candidate happens to be the subject in question – especially if the ruling goes against the candidate.

I do agree, however, that the issue needs to be laid to rest so that there isn’t another like this that can mar an election.

Turtle317 on January 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM

I would love to see something that definitively states the meaning of “natural born citizen,” but I’m afraid that anything less than putting it in the Constitution via amendment would not really lay the issue to rest. Ironically, given that conservatives generally recognize how often SCOTUS inserts their own opinions into law, I think a SCOTUS opinion would ultimately carry more weight than any statute.

Any law Congress passes to define it would be rejected by those who love to quote that the Constitution only gives Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, not to define the limits of natural born citizenship. Some even argue that born citizens MUST BE naturalized citizens, because Congress is not permitted to defined natural born citizen. This of course leads to claiming a citizen by birth became a citizen by naturalization.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the common law definition of subject, which said that anyone born in a nation must therefore be a subject of the Crown, even if their parents were just traveling through from their own country. I believe this interpretation is the cause of the “anchor baby” phenomenon.

I think the Founding Fathers were far more influenced by Vattel’s description of citizenship being by blood, and it certainly seems more compatible with the 1790 declaration by Congress that anyone born abroad of American citizens was a natural born citizen.

But the question here, of course, is what does the law as currently written and understood say? And I don’t see any law recognizing a category of citizen between born and naturalized. If Congress created a category of citizen as “born, but naturalized,” they seem to not be aware of it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2016 at 4:02 PM

Obviously Cruz wants to divert his weak claim to NBC by taking advantage of the legal ignorance of some of the birthers. There is not one legal argument I’ve read that disqualifies Trump. The most conservative requirement for NBC is that the child is born to two US Citizens and does not have dual citizenship at birth. There is no requirement that the parents were citizens at their own birth. Totally bogus of Cruz.

marti124 on January 15, 2016 at 4:23 PM

ITguy on January 15, 2016 at 3:33 PM

Yeah, I knew what you meant. I was just being a wise-ass because I think the whole issue is a smelly red herring.

hillbillyjim on January 15, 2016 at 6:12 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM

Because NO Birther has EVER argued that the parents themselve must be NBC. Only that parents be citizens. I’ve been among Birthers since 2008, I know the arguments: 2 citizen parents (including naturalized) + soil = natural born.

If the Founders meant anything simpler than that, they wouldn’t have used the special phrase “natural born” in the first place. It meant something more than having one cit parent born on foreign soil. Obviously.

Aslans Girl on January 15, 2016 at 6:25 PM

I said Cruz “LIED” because NO ONE makes the argument he did about naturalized parents, IOW, Cruz made a STRAWMAN argument. Which is a LIE.

Aslans Girl on January 15, 2016 at 6:27 PM

“Cruz springs the trap by explaining Tribe’s political affiliation and his support for Hillary Clinton.”

How did that “spring the tarp?” It emphasized Trump’s point, that Democrats will question Cruz’s status. Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) has already promised to file a lawsuit if Cruz is on the ticket.

Colony14 on January 15, 2016 at 6:46 PM

“On the issue of citizenship, Donald, I’m not going to use the issue of your mother’s birth against you,” Cruz said.

Cruz’s attack is too dumb to answer. Typical dishonest lawyer. Trump’s mother was a citizen when he was born. He is an NBC, Cruz isn’t.

cimbri on January 15, 2016 at 7:09 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM

Because NO Birther has EVER argued that the parents themselve must be NBC. Only that parents be citizens. I’ve been among Birthers since 2008, I know the arguments: 2 citizen parents (including naturalized) + soil = natural born.

If the Founders meant anything simpler than that, they wouldn’t have used the special phrase “natural born” in the first place. It meant something more than having one cit parent born on foreign soil. Obviously.

Aslans Girl on January 15, 2016 at 6:25 PM

I said Cruz “LIED” because NO ONE makes the argument he did about naturalized parents, IOW, Cruz made a STRAWMAN argument. Which is a LIE.

Aslans Girl on January 15, 2016 at 6:27 PM

Yes, some birthers believe that you’re only a natural born citizen if you’re born in the US to two parents who were both natural born citizens. If you’ve never heard that argument made, you haven’t been listening.

As I said, and as Cruz himself said when he quoted the argument, it’s an extreme position. But it is not a straw man argument, nor is it a lie.

And this is why it’s significant: because people are calling Cruz a liar — falsely.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2016 at 11:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4