Mr. Trump, all that stuff in the scandal magazines at the check-out counter needs to be answered, its out there, you should address all of it for your own good because we know you are a nice guy, and it could come back to haunt you, just say’n.
Yesterday Donald Trump dropped some innuendo about Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for president because he was born in Calgary, Canada. The ineligibility mongering was also picked up by Rand Paul who has turned as déclassé as his advisor Steve Grubbs of Shameful ignominy. It was low-born of both of them, an exercise of either pathetic desperation or pettiness. It was especially pathetic for Trump to raise the matter because in September here is what he was saying regarding the matter:
“I hear it was checked out by every attorney and every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape,”
Ed note The first You Tube account link regarding Trump saying “Ted is in fine shape” has been cancelled. That is interesting, but there are alternatives unfortunately you just have to look at Chris Matthews introducing the video. See it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGa_DiHFxts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGa_DiHFxts
Rand Paul, to use a Trump locution, is such a loser that nothing more need be said, given his place in the polls. Like Trump, he offered no justification for his remarks.
Here is a pretty good summation of the truth of Cruz’s eligibility, from Justin Haskins writing at The Blaze. Ann Coulter is mentioned in the excerpt straight away. It should be noted that she is an ardent Trump supporter when she is not extolling her other favorite –Mitt Romney. She is as two-faced as Trump on the matter, adding shrillness to his bombast.
There are only three constitutional qualifications for becoming president. A person must be at least age 35, have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and the candidate must be a “natural born Citizen.” Because Cruz’ father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Cruz’ birth and because Cruz was born in Canada, some—including famous conservative pundit Ann Coulter—have argued Cruz does not qualify as a “natural born Citizen.”
The evidence, however, is strongly opposed to that claim. Contrary to the claims of Cruz’ critics, a natural born citizen is simply someone who is a citizen at birth, a designation determined by federal law (the Constitution does not specifically law out who is a “natural born Citizen”).
According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a person born outside the United States with one U.S. citizen parent after Oct. 10, 1952, and before Nov. 14, 1986, is a natural born citizen so long as the parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent resided in the United States for at least 10 years prior to the birth, five of which must be after that person’s 14th birthday. There are other considerations as well, but none of which would alter Cruz’ status. Because Cruz fits the description above, he was a citizen at birth according to U.S. law.
Some have suggested that simply being a citizen at birth is not the same as being a natural born Citizen, but as Neal Katyal and Paul Clement argue for the Harvard Law Review Forum, such an argument is obviously false. British common law, which they argue was the basis upon which the “natural born Citizen” provision was made, always allowed for individuals born outside of the British Empire to British citizens to automatically receive a “natural born” status.
Further, the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was written and passed by many of the same Founding Fathers who wrote and voted on the Constitution, stated, “[T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. …”
If the Founders didn’t intend for natural born citizens to be born outside of the United States to only one U.S. citizen, why did the Naturalization Act of 1790 provide for just that?
To offer a Trump caliber “argument” in response to Coulter we might say: “if she would maybe eat a sandwich she might develop some consistency . . . I mean seriously have you seen her . . . she is going to blow away . . . everybody says so” OK we won’t pretend to be as good at Trumpsterisms as her master so we will just rely on posting her, shall we say, divergent Tweets on the subject via therightscoop;
The headline is Ms. Coulter’s:
Now that she has wrapped herself around Trump, which requires even more flexibility than she articulated on behalf of Romney, this is what she is saying:
Context is key and her January 6th “Tweet” was to lend support to Trump’s little bon mots earlier in the day. This is unquestionably a flip-flop by Ms Coulter. Regardless, if the substance of this matter is to be determined by assertions from lawyer-pundits then we will go with Mark Levin who has studied the issue closely and stated on his radio program:
Mark Levin: Trump needs to lay off Cruz’s eligibility for president because there is NO issue there
But the determination of this is not so obscure that laymen who have a basic grounding in American history and government can not satisfy themselves. The summation at the beginning of this post refers to a Harvard Law Journal article which we link to below and commend to readers (we add another excerpt as well). We also recommend an article by Andy Sandberg, an activist with The Overseas American Academy, an organization intensely interested in issues revolving around U.S. Citizenship. It is titled The Evolution of U.S. Citizenship Law Since 1789 and available for free download.
We point out in particular the excerpts in that chronologically ordered compilation regarding: The “THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940” and “THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952.” Note that the compilation was prepared in February of 2012.
Harvard Law Review excerpt from On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law
3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888).
and enactments of the First Congress.
4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).
Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
Both the Harvard Law Review article and the non-argumentative compilations in the Overseas American Academy article include excerpts and references to Common Law precedents, our Constitution and pursuant legislation. The latter two are controlling. It is a very informative compilation and we commend it to you. There is a lot of partisan humbug out there so read these very accessable articles for yourself.
Re: “birthers”
Some individuals otherwise amenable to the Cruz candidacy might think acknowledging his eligibility might be inconsistent with suspicions about Obama’s “natural-born” citizenship. They are confusing issues. As Trump, a celebrated ‘birther” regarding Obama said just a few months ago (roll tape), they are two different matters.
In our view the most substantive question with regard to Obama revolves around whether Obama’s non-adult mother, according to the statutes in effect at the time, could confer citizenship to Barack, the son of a foreign student, who by the way was not an immigrant. The idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya we find implausible.
We suspect the reason he has refused to authorize examination of actual documents relevant to his birth citizenship and school admissions is to avoid revelation of other embarrassing information. We wonder if Obama matriculated to college in California and elsewhere as a foreign student, for advantage, having given up U.S. citizenship when he lived in Indonesia with his mother and step father as some documentation implies.
A publication somewhat notorious for exposing discrepancies in Obama’s “natural-born” biography is World Net Daily. We interpret this article appearing there as dismissive of any serious legal argument challenging Cruz’s eligibility.
Donald Trump goes ‘birther’ on Ted Cruz
Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born in Calgary in 1970, but his father had been born in Cuba. Legal scholars say it is likely Cruz would pass the U.S. Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” litmus test if the issue ever landed him in court
Landing in court would have all the memorable political impact of the challenges to McCain as to his eligibility as in none. Trump et al should knock off the demagoguery or they lose deference and good will that could help propel their candidacy(s).
Other reading:
Experts agree Trump is wrong Cruz is eligible The Blaze
Here we go: Trump says Cruz’s Canadian birth could be “very precarious” for the GOP
By Allahpundit writing at HotAit.
Ann Coulter mocked for contradictory tweets about Ted Cruz birtherism
Cruz Birthers National Review
Why Ted Cruz is Eligible for President Gun Owners of America
Trump: Let’s Face It, Ted Cruz’s Canadian Birth is a Real Problem Guy Benson writing at Town Hall challenges the Trump assertion as self aggrandizing phoniness.
R Mall
