१३ जानेवारी, २०१६
"Sadly, there is no way that Ted Cruz can continue running in the Republican Primary unless he can erase doubt on eligibility. Dems will sue!"
Tweeted Trump — really doubling down now.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४६ टिप्पण्या:
What Donald knows is that even if a declaratory judgment could be filed (not at all sure it could be), a decision would not happen for at least 60 days and more likely 90 days. By then, it's too late. The damage is done. And then Trump can say, "What about the appeal?"
I find this reprehensible but it shows how Trump plays hardball. More like NY street ball.
When the Dems drop the dirt on Donald it will be devasting.
After Obama, Dems can't sue. Trump is probably the only person on either side of the aisle who gets to make an issue of Cruz' eligibility.
Evidently, stupid statements are not an impediment to success in Donald's world.
Evidently Cruz is the rival Trimp fears most.
I doubt Dems CAN sue in the first place. Who has the standing to do so?
What is amazing is that media people listen to what Donald Trump says, while it doesn't really matter except as chum for the fishies, while at the same time the same media is ignoring completely the outrageous things that come out of the mouths of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary keeps dropping political turds and enormously mendacious whoppers, and Bernie keeps on being an unreconstructed 1960 socialist, despite 70 years of evidence of the failure of that political paradigm, and nobody in the media bats an eye!
I, for one, expect at least some notice from the press before the end of the world as we know it, which election of either of these Democrats would portend, but I also expect to be disappointed by them.
Scott Adams, the cartoonist behind Dilbert has a very interesting series of blog posts about Trump and his campaign. In early August, contrary to most other pundits, he predicted Trump would be at the top of the polls for the Republican nomination. Then, in October, he stated that not only would Trump win the general, he would win it by a landslide. Adams focuses ibn Trump's campaign tactic of using persuasion rather than focusing on policy arguments. I'm not at all sure that he's wrong. Trump is just playing a very different game.
"Evidently, stupid statements are not an impediment to success in Donald's world."
American politics. If stupid statements impeded success, there wouldn't be anyone in Congress or the White House.
Ah Trump, concern trolling--sounds a lot like the "hey I want to hire black people, I just have a lot of bigoted employees who will object!"
But I suppose he's at least consistent on this issue. If he thought Obama was ineligible by (allegedly) being born outside the U.S., it would be nonsensical for him to give Cruz a pass where there is no doubt Cruz was also born overseas.
I read the Research Paper by Widener Professor of Law, Mary McManamon, cited by Coupe, and it presents an argument, yes with citations and research and all that jazz, that it is clear that in the eyes of early Americans, the ones who wrote the Constitution, someone born in a foreign country is not a natural born citizen eligible to serve as President. There are a couple of exceptions for children born to US Ambassadors or soldiers in hostile armies. This reading would not surprise me in the least.
I said long before Trump that Cruz owes it to potential supporters (me) to clarify this point. I don't believe a declaratory type of judgment is an avenue to do that.
I like the way Trump and Cruz are campaigning against each other. They're getting some stuff out there, but its not nasty.
Look, Cruz is Trump's main adversary in Iowa and NH. If he can sow some doubt in the voter's minds, Trump will win by a bigger margin.
He also wants to clear the litigation stuff up so Cruz can be his VP.
Just when I believe I can't think any less of Donald Trump, he comes up with something new and disgusting. Shameful.
@MikeR
Go read the article Coupe cited.
When the Dems drop the dirt on Donald it will be devasting.
Trump is probably the most vetted candidate we’ve ever seen. He’s been in the public eye since forever. Not much dirt to speak of, in my opinion, but I stand ready to be corrected if the commentor has some links to offer. If the Democrats could have dropped the hammer on Trump it would have already happened.
But … I think we are looking at a real possibility of a Rathergate-style dirty trick attempt after Trump gets the nomination. What else can they do?
Trump is probably the only person on either side of the aisle who gets to make an issue of Cruz' eligibility.
Well, no. Unless some columnists at prominent newspapers and respected constitutional scholars are not counted as persons. Trump took that ball and ran with it, of course – he’s not stupid and he’s nothing if not opportunistic.
Volokh:
Debating whether Ted Cruz is a ‘natural born citizen’
"Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe is not so sure, telling the Guardian that the issue is unsettled."
Does anybody think the Democrats won't sue or at least make it a general election issue?
I like the rebuttal joke that says Trump needs immigrant wives, because they do a job Americans don't want.
Sue? Oh, no!
Trump is a tool - surprise.
David Begley said...When the Dems drop the dirt on Donald it will be devasting.
I agree with grackle above. This guy's dirt has been out there tumbling around for a while. Just look at the Comedy Central roast he sat though.
After Bill Clinton and John Edwards, what are they going to come up with for Trump that we haven't already seen? Many people don't care anymore.
After watching Nikki Haley last night, the establishment GOP can shove it. Trump is right. The connected political establishment is full of shit.
Trump was my favorite candidate until about a month ago, when Cruz became my favorite. I still like Trump, and I predict that he will win the nomination and select Cruz as his running mate.
I think that Trump is acting correctly to raise this valid issue about Cruz.
I think that nobody ever will be granted legal standing for a lawsuit -- especially before the candidate is elected US President. After he is elected, no court will dare to throw him out of his elected office.
The situation involving Barack Obama provides a good example. Nobody ever was granted legal standing to require the Hawaii state government to release a one-page civil-registry document, a 1961 birth certificate, of a person who was required by the US Constitution to be a natural-born citizen. The entire US population had to rely on one clerk's summary of this super-top-secret document.
In 2008, practically all Scientific Progressives angrily denounced the very idea that anyone ever should be granted such standing as stupid, obnoxious and racist. And that argument prevailed.
Limited blogger:
He [Trump] also wants to clear the litigation stuff up so Cruz can be his VP.
I agree.
The short conclusion of Professor McManamon's article:
The introduction to this Article posed a question: “in the eyes of early
Americans, would someone born in a foreign country of American parents be a
‘natural born citizen’ and therefore eligible to be President of the United
States?”
The pertinent historical materials lead to only one conclusion: aside
from children born to U.S. ambassadors or soldiers in hostile armies, the
answer is “no.”
This makes sense, as even during my time in Germany, American soldiers wives were plopping out jus soli (rights by soil) citizens, and not jus sanguinis (rights by blood) citizens. Same with diplomats.
Cruz's father escaped conscription by fleeing to Canada. His mother plopped him out and had no allegiance to the US. She was not a diplomat, or wife, and not in the military, or a dependent. She was a Canadian immigrant, and a US emigrant, and they were fleeing to avoid the father being drafted.
"When the Dems drop the dirt on Donald it will be devasting."
Perhaps. Trump for whatever reason hasn't been able to get a gaming license in Vegas and that is worthy of consideration. But then again unlike Hillary he isn't the subject of an FBI investigation that might well lead to an indictment on various charges among them corruption so the Democrats have nothing going for them other than spite at best.
Hey Don, thanks for the concern trolling. Just made a donation to Cruz and thanks for reminding me to vote for him in the primary.
It doesn't matter what Trump says about Cruz being eligible. If Cruz grabs the Repub nomination, you'll hear a "he isn't eligible to be President" from not only the Dem Party and the Dem nominee, but every single day from the MSM. By the time they get done with Cruz you wouldn't want the foreigner living in your neighborhood.
This I guarantee.
grackle said...
"Trump is probably the only person on either side of the aisle who gets to make an issue of Cruz' eligibility."
Well, no. Unless some columnists at prominent newspapers and respected constitutional scholars are not counted as persons.
No, not really. For these purposes, they are not. I'm talking about the party apparati and those with a hope of legal standing to make a real challenge. Columnists at prominent newspapers surely are not and, while I assume your inclusion of respected constitutional scholars is rhetorical, they aren't either.
Evidently it is Dpnald's fault that Cruz was born in The Queen's Dominion of Canada.
And blaming the Messenger for the message is so Devine Right Kingly of El Presidente Cruz.
Was unaware that what the early American founders did had precedent.
Because the Capitol was used for church services for years. I bet that might not be supported.
Come on, media. Pretend he's saying this about Obama and go to every Democrat, asking if they will sue if Cruz becomes the nominee.
My meta-media comment:
So scholars as eminent and as ideologically diverse as Neal Katyal, Paul Clement, Eugene Volokh, and Randy Barnett have all concluded that it is a more or less easy call, to say that Cruz is constitutionally qualified for the presidency. None of them get much notice.
In addition, in the weeds, there are partisan-opposites Ted Olson and Lawrence Tribe, arguing that John McCain's birth in the U.S. Canal Zone was not disqualifying for his run for the presidency, and among the qualifying features were his birth to U.S. citizen parents.
But along comes a Widener University law prof, who makes news because she has an argument that Cruz is not qualified. It is news for three reasons. One is that her opinion is such an outlier among most constitutional scholars. Nobody cares about that fact; the press likes her opinion, so she's a respected expert. The second reason is that it clouds the Republican primary. The media hates Republicans, and Cruz, and they like anything that is a problem for Cruz. But last, there is Trump. Somebody called this "concern-trolling" for Trump. What a great term that is, thanks to the internet age.
Last night, when Marco Rubio was asked about Cruz's qualifications, Rubio said clearly and assertively that it was no issue. He said Cruz was clearly qualified, and that it was not a story. Rubio looked confident. He looked presidential.
By contrast, Trump just looks ugly. Trump doesn't know the answer. Everybody knows that Trump doesn't know. And yet everybody knows that Trump wants to use it in whatever way that serves his interest, and that Trump can't stop talking about it.
Telling Donald Trump to shut the fuck up about this seems inadequate. I just want to slap him across the face.
I'm not questioning Cruz's eligibilty, but, have the courts weighed in on this issue?
@Chuck
Have you read McManamon's Research Paper? If so, in which part of her analysis do you think she is mistaken?
I don't know if McManamon is correct or not, but she obviously did some actual research and put together a cogent analysis based upon the research she did.
I'd like to see AA fisk Mcmanamon in the same way she deconstructs other articles. It would be a bit of work.
If the Hillary Clinton campaign wanted to do something to destroy Donald Trump's reputation, why would they do it now??
I mean this is point that then Brooklyn Democratic boss made to Tim Russert, who was then working for Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when they exposed lies of potential Republican Senatorial candidate Bruce Caputo.
"Hey, kid, why are you taking this guy out now? They'll just find someone else to run against your man"
https://books.google.com/books?id=xdPbAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&dq=meade+esposito+moynihan+caputo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOxJ_pxqfKAhVBcz4KHbvYCHwQ6AEIFDAA#v=onepage&q=meade%20esposito%20moynihan%20caputo&f=false
Russert writes in his book that the reason this was beleived is that it came from reporters and doing this in the heat of the campaign would have looked partissana nd it just came up naturally in a conversation with reporters and the reporters checked it.
They didn't lose out. They ran ads early, to try to make the Republicans believe it wasn't worth making a fight, and deloiberately made them in black and white to stand out.
See also:
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/18/nyregion/was-never-in-army-caputo-says.html
Mr. Caputo said that the issue had been called to the attention of some reporters by the staff of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Democrat who Mr. Caputo hopes to unseat in the election this November.
A spokesman for Mr. Moynihan said the Senator's office had, in fact, called attention to what appeared to be inconsistencies in Mr. Caputo's description of his military record. But the spokesman, Timothy Russert, said this had been done only with reporters who had first called to seek a response to recent attacks by Mr. Caputo on Senator Moynihan.
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-man-this-good-is-hard-to-find-19850214
"By contrast, Trump just looks ugly. Trump doesn't know the answer. Everybody knows that Trump doesn't know. And yet everybody knows that Trump wants to use it in whatever way that serves his interest, and that Trump can't stop talking about it."
In fairness, that's pretty much how Trump operates. Take something people are mad at, whether they are mad for a good reason or some exaggerated nonsense, and with absolute disregard for whether it's real come up with some simple, often completely inane solution and wait for all the "right enemies" (liberals, the "establishment"--which basically means anyone who isn't a Trump fan) to pounce so his supporters circle the wagons. Rinse, repeat.
Does Trump even have an opinion as to whether someone is eligible to be president? Who cares? Trump certainly doesn't. He's the quintessential crazy old uncle uttering a stream of consciousness, and this appeals because (1) he's drawn the right enemies and (2) the idea of someone who couldn't care less what others think of him is refreshing after years of hedging, backtracking politicians. They love this stuff.
Does any of this mean he would be a successful president? Well, if you believe that a guy can just waltz into Washington with "big ideas" and stirring rhetoric and "top notch" technocrats can overcome the way our government system works as well as the limits of presidential power, we already saw how well that works, and that president is leaving office next year.
Trump's advice should be heeded. Democrats are known to abuse the court system in order to advance their objectives.
Trump just injects uncertainty, chaos and controversy into Ted's eligibility.
That was his goal. In a big field, he can swing 2-4% with his allegation.
Mission Accomplished.
In the late 1700s, citizenship was probably a less permanent thing. And it was only an issue for adult men.
damikesc said...Was unaware that what the early American founders did had precedent. Because the Capitol was used for church services for years. I bet that might not be supported.
As far as law is concerned, yes, as far as any other reason, no.
Most Americans don't even know who the founding fathers were, never read their pamphlets, books, or graffiti. You can graduate grade school with less knowledge than an immigrant is required to know, in order to gain naturalization.
The Supreme Court used to spend all day on what the founding fathers did. Now they just make-up shit and Congress has no way to challenge them (they are all out campaigning all year).
“Poor Joshua!”
The same issue cae up in 1967/68 with George Romney, who was born in Mexico in 1907 to polygamous Mormons who returned to the United States after the 1911 revolution.
David Begley said...
Trump just injects uncertainty, chaos and controversy into Ted's eligibility.
That was his goal. In a big field, he can swing 2-4% with his allegation.
In a caucus state? Iowa? I doubt it. If anything this is battle prep for an actual primary.
It's had a negative effect on me. Strangely enough, I think that Trump has finally crossed a line. There's not a chance that the Supreme Court would block a Cruz candidacy or overturn a victory based on the fact that be was born overseas to American parents. It would be suicidal for the Court to do so, and I do not think they are remotely institutionally suicidal.
Citizenship mattered more in the 1790's? You did not even have to be a citizen to vote. This is from the Constitution of Pennsylvania in 1790:
"In elections by the citizens, every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the state two years next before the election, and within that time paid a state or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elector: Provided, that the sons of persons qualified as aforesaid, between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-two years, shall be entitled to vote, although they shall not have paid taxes."
People are often surprised to find that there is no constitutional requirement of citizenship to vote. The states are free to set voting requirements, and states can (and have) allowed non citizens to vote at many times in our history.
No, not really. For these purposes, they are not. I'm talking about the party apparati and those with a hope of legal standing to make a real challenge. Columnists at prominent newspapers surely are not and, while I assume your inclusion of respected constitutional scholars is rhetorical, they aren't either.
But this is not a debate about constitutional standing to make a legal challenge. It is a given that someone somewhere does have standing and will be put forth by the Democrats to make the challenge. To believe otherwise is to be out of touch with reality.
The real question is whether the Democrats will make a campaign issue of it if Cruz were to be the nominee or on the ticket as VP. No one needs any legal standing to do that.
Cruz is in the exact situation that Obama claimed to be in before he changed his story and said he was born in HI. Born to a citizen mother and a non citizen father in a foreign country. If Cruz is eligible,then the whole kerfuffle about Obama was a huge waste of time. Personally, I think that if you are the child of a citizen, you are a citizen. There is nothing inconsistent in the Democratic's position that Cruz in ineligible, since they chose to believe Obama's second story, that he was born in the US. But there is a lot of inconsistency in anybody who said Obama was ineligible based on his birth in Kenya, as Obama first claimed he was.
If Trump gets the nomination, he'll name another non-politician as his VP.
Donald Trump-Mark Cuban in 2016
"Cruz is in the exact situation that Obama claimed to be in before he changed his story and said he was born in HI. Born to a citizen mother and a non citizen father in a foreign country. If Cruz is eligible,then the whole kerfuffle about Obama was a huge waste of time. Personally, I think that if you are the child of a citizen, you are a citizen. There is nothing inconsistent in the Democratic's position that Cruz in ineligible, since they chose to believe Obama's second story, that he was born in the US. But there is a lot of inconsistency in anybody who said Obama was ineligible based on his birth in Kenya, as Obama first claimed he was."
Did Obama actually claim he was born in Kenya?
I think as long as there's genuine uncertainty about the requirement (i.e., whether having one U.S. citizen parent qualifies you even if you were born outside the U.S.) then this needs to be addressed--maybe the Constitution should be amended to make it more clear. I always thought "natural born" meant "born in this country" but that may not be the strictly legal definition. I'd be fine changing the constitutional requirement, though, because it seems silly to make that distinction. As long as someone is currently a U.S. citizen, it should otherwise be up to the voters to decide if they are "American" enough.
Trump crossed a line for me too for me with this attack on Ted.
Barack was born in the U.S.A.
Rafael was not.
Tank: Yes, I did read the McManamon column. (It is not a "paper," or an "article," in the sense of any law review-type publication.)
Have all of you read the Neal Katyal/Paul Clement "Note" in the Harvard Law Review forum? That note fits the law review style of writing. It is footnoted, for one thing.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
My real ire is not with Professor McManamon. She is welcome to her opinion; she has expressed it well in column-form. No case has defined "natural born citizen" from Article II, of course. She chooses some old examples of common law, and says that those must prevail. If she were right, a vast array of modern constitutional cases could not have been decided as they were. In the end, I don't believe for a moment that any federal district court, Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court would rule against Cruz on the Article II language.
Again, my real offense is aimed at Trump. He's no legal scholar, and yet he wants to talk about it, and feels it is his right to suggest that Cruz end his campaign.
I'm not even that much of a fan of Cruz's presidential campaign. I like Ted Cruz in the Senate, and that is where I'd like him to stay. Just like I'd like to see Trump stay inside of his apartment.
Telling Donald Trump to shut the fuck up about this seems inadequate. I just want to slap him across the face.
Here’s the question that is yet to be answered. Who is the commentor’s choice for POTUS? Who is it that the commentor would not slap “across the face?” Is this a secret or something?
Has no one considered that Cruz has been a registered voter in the State of Texas? That he served as Attorney General for the State of Texas? That he serves in the US Senate? That all these require that he be a US Citizen? That he has not been naturalized yet has been able to hold all these positions because the authorities - and more importantly, the voters - had no question of his citizenship. I think on Althouse blog here several days we went through all this. I believe under the law at the time he was born he is.a citizen because he was born of a US citizen mother who had been a resident of the US for at least 5 years beyond the age of 18, as was Obama. Case closed. Obama is a citizen and Cruz is a citizen under US law no matter where he was born. This is just noise.
MountainMan
the authorities - and more importantly, the voters - had no question of his citizenship
Everyone agrees that Cruz is a citizen.
The issue is whether he is a natural-born citizen.
Cruz's problem here is that his mother was a Canadian citizen when he was born.
Barack was born in the U.S.A
I know, what always mystified me was why he said he wasn't, then changed his story. In the case of Juanita Broaddrick, I know that makes her a liar, but we all know that she was attacking a Democrat, so the same standard doesn't apply to Obama.
Trump is already 0 for 1 on the birther issue. He got played by Obama. Obama waited, knowing he could release his birth certificate at any time. In the meantime Trump kept playing the birther card.
So, if an America woman goes on holiday while 8 months pregnant, and goes into labor early while in Paris, is the child American or French citizen? If the child is an American citizen, and they had to not got through a naturalization process, then wouldn't this child be a natural born citizen.
Brando said...... I think that if you are the child of a citizen, you are a citizen.
There is no debating that. What's important (for the office of the Presidency) is the added Constitutional requirement to be naturally born.
I think this is a problem that could be best solved by Amendment. If we join Europe, Africa, Middle East, and Asia, in saying that being naturally born is immaterial, and that the only thing that matters is "right of blood" citizenship.
Anyway, "right of soil" serves no purpose in the 21st Century. We no longer need to populate vast lands with non-blood citizens.
I don't really like any of these people.
Garage,
He doesn't have to have been. His mother was a US Citizen, therefore making his a citizen by birth.
Cruz's problem here is that his mother was a Canadian citizen when he was born.
I think she had dual US-Canadian citizenship. Maybe she renounced her US citizenship to become a Canadian citizen.
I suppose it's valid to argue that Ted Cruz is not even a US citizen, although that's not the precise issue here.
The precise issue is whether Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen if his mother had dual citizenship and even renounced her US citizenship.
Even so, I think that nobody has legal standing on the issue. This Constitutional requirement lacks an enforcement mechanism.
So, if an America woman goes on holiday while 8 months pregnant, and goes into labor early while in Paris, is the child American or French citizen? If the child is an American citizen, and they had to not got through a naturalization process, then wouldn't this child be a natural born citizen.
of course.
Why would the "commonsense" meaning of "natural born citizen" mean "born in the country"? Remember, the US is virtually alone in granting citizenship to those individuals born on its soil. The "natural" way to acquire citizenship is by being born as the son or daughter of a citizen.
Chuck wrote:
By contrast, Trump just looks ugly. Trump doesn't know the answer. Everybody knows that Trump doesn't know. And yet everybody knows that Trump wants to use it in whatever way that serves his interest, and that Trump can't stop talking about it.
This is now the 2nd election where Trump brings it up. And he still doesn't know?
"know, what always mystified me was why he said he wasn't, then changed his story. "
LOL
lgv
Trump is already 0 for 1 on the birther issue. He got played by Obama. Obama waited, knowing he could release his birth certificate at any time. In the meantime Trump kept playing the birther card.
Trump was correct to argue that Barack Obama's birth certificate should have been released to the public.
After all, the US Constitution includes a birth requirement for the US President, and so the government's best documents should be made available for public examination. In these circumstances, one clerk's summary of the original document is inadequate. The government's best document is the original document itself.
Because of Trump's successful pressure on Obama, a good precedent was established. As long as the natural-citizenship requirement remains in the US Constitution, no future Presidential candidates will be able to get away with keeping their original birth-certificate documents unavailable to the public.
In the case of Cruz, he should make available to the public all original documents related to his mother's citizenship status when he was born.
If Cruz didn't see this coming, he deserves to lose. It's not like debater, Princeton undergrad, Harvard Law, lawyer, and politician is up there with mom, baseball, and apple pie. The Canadian citizenship jab just underscores that Cruz isn't your typical American guy. He needs to stop talking like a lawyer and start acting like a guy who grew up in the U.S. The problem for Cruz is he's the type of guy no one likes. He comes off like an ivy-league asshole
Mike Sylwester, I think you missed last week's class.
Breitbart published a .pdf of his Eleanor Darragh Cruz's Delaware birth certificate.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/
lgv said...So, if an America woman goes on holiday while 8 months pregnant, and goes into labor early while in Paris, is the child American or French citizen?
American Citizen by blood. If the woman is NOT a diplomat, or military (active or dependent) it is a by blood only birth, otherwise it is both a "by soil" and a "by blood" birth. Any child born under an American flag is a "by soil" birth. That child may or may not be a "by blood" birth (illegal Mexican alien for example).
An illegal alien to the US that plops a kid out, has created a "by soil" naturally born citizen.
A "by blood" citizenship in an alien country means you are NOT naturally born in the US. It's a minor distinction, as most people don't want to run for President.
But, coupe, you've just added a distinction: "naturally born in the US"! The constitution doesn't say that.
By the way, Mike; Trump was STUPID to demand a copy of Obama's Hawaii birth certificate. There was never, ever any serious doubt about the time and place and circumstances of Obama's birth.
I say no "serious" doubt because there was of course plenty of idiotic brain-dead embarrassing doubt. Like Orly Taitz. And Donald Trump.
It's funny; I'd be the first to admit that there is 1000 times more doubt about Ted Cruz's qualifications for president under Article II Section 1, than there was with Obama.
Understand that I am asking you the following question in order to expose you: What do you think was doubtful about Obama's birth-qualifications for the presidency? Obama was born in Hawaii, to a mother (Ann Dunham) who was herself born in Wichita, Kansas. Barack's birth was announced at the time in two Honolulu newspapers.
I was softening towards Trump. Now? I definitely won't vote for him. There are usually four or five parties on the ballot here and if Trump is the nominee I'll be taking a look. Count it as a protest vote.
Eleanor Darragh Cruz's Delaware birth certificate.
We already know that she was born in America. We may even know that she never denounced her citizenship.
We know that she wasn't a diplomat, and that she and her husband were not under military orders.
We also know that none of that matters.
She had a child in an alien country, and that child could never be a jus soli citizen (by soil). The child is forever a child only by blood (jus sanguinis).
By Canadian rule (jus soli) he became a Canadian citizen by the fact of being born "by soil". But he was also an American citizen, "naturalized by birth", due to the rights of blood of his mother.
The earlier example of France is different, because France and most of the world do not recognize jus soli (by soil) births.
OK, I'll shut up now :-)
Mike Sylwester wrote:
Trump was correct to argue that Barack Obama's birth certificate should have been released to the public.
It should have been released to the public, but not being released to the public I'm not sure it was relevant as to whether he was a citizen or not (Obama that is). unless the certificate somehow suggested his mother wasn't a citizen, then it wouldnt' really matter if he was born in Kenya or the US.
Granted, we are operating under differnet interpretations of what Natural Born Citizen means.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
Apparently his agent wrote is biographical info without getting any info from Obama himself. She was in the habit of making stuff up out of whole cloth, apparently and Obama never saw this information, contributed to it, or approved it.
Jane the Actuary said...But, coupe, you've just added a distinction...
My bad.
Understand that I am asking you the following question in order to expose you …
Speaking of questions and exposure: Does the commentor care to expose who his choice for POTUS is? I am going to continue to ask this question because I think it deserves an answer.
Ted Cruz was endorsed by Phil Robertson, which is huge in my book. I will support Ted over Trump.
Andrew Mccarthy weighed in on this and provided the historical context for what "natural born citizenship means:
"The Constitution’s invocation of “natural born citizen” incorporates this principle of citizenship derived from parentage. That this is the original meaning is obvious from the Naturalization Act of 1790. It was enacted by the first Congress, which included several of the framers, and signed into law by President George Washington, who had presided over the constitutional convention. The Act provided that children born outside the United States to American citizens were “natural born” U.S. citizens at birth, “Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” As we shall see presently, Congress later changed the law, making it easier for one American-citizen parent to pass birthright citizenship to his or her child, regardless of whether the non-American parent ever resided in the United States. But even if the more demanding 1790 law had remained in effect, Cruz would still be a natural born citizen. His mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson, is an American citizen born in Delaware; his native-Cuban father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was a legal resident of the U.S. for many years before Ted was born.
As Katyal and Clement observe, changes in the law after 1790 clarified that children born of a single American-citizen parent outside the United States are natural born American citizens “subject to certain residency requirements.” Those residency requirements have changed over time. Under the law in effect when Cruz was born in 1970 (i.e., statutes applying to people born between 1952 and 1986), the requirement was that, at the time of birth, the American citizen parent had to have resided in the U.S. for ten years, including five years after the age of fourteen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, easily met that requirement: she was in her mid-thirties when Ted was born and had spent most of her life in the U.S., including graduating from Rice University with a math degree that led to employment in Houston as a computer programmer at Shell Oil."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429356/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen
He's a natural born citizen then, simply because his mom is a US citizen and met the residency requirements at the time he was born.
I suppose that would be the only thing that might have invalidated Obama being a "natural born citizen" for the purpose of the precideny. If somehow his mother didn't meet the residency requirements at the time of Obama' birth. Which might explain why a birth certificate was potentially important. (though, would a b.c. have any of that info?)
Trump could care less about Cruz's citizenship, he wants to emphasize his otherness - Cuban/Canadian.
I have never believed for one minute that Obama's pregnant, teenaged mother got on an airplane from Hawaii to Africa a few weeks before she had a baby and then zipped right back to the US in a matter of weeks (didn't she enroll in college in Washington State not long after the birth?) However, it does seem to have been Obama - or his publicity people, at least - who started the story that he was born in Kenya. Obama's literary agent put out a brochure in 1991 stating that he was born in Kenya. Snopes rates this as "True," and says that the agent says the mistake was hers.
However, the agency's bio was still giving his birthplace as Kenya in 2007, by which time the bio had been posted on the agency's website and the error had been out there in the public sphere for 16 years. Somehow, in all that time, Obama never got around to correcting it. Even if the original error wasn't Obama's, he let it stand for all those years, and he certainly knew about it. Anybody who thinks that authors don't read the publicity blurbs that their agents cook up for them (and which are always based on info that came from the authors) doesn't know any authors.
Who knew? Garage is actually a truther.
Obama himself is the original birther!
Tank,
Elizabeth Price Foley did a risking of the Widener professors article over at instapundit. I can't link to it directly but if you search instapundit for "Mary" its the fourth or fifth article.
Chuck:
Breitbart published a .pdf of his Eleanor Darragh Cruz's Delaware birth certificate.
I don't understand your point. Does anybody argue that Ted Cruz's mother was not born in the USA?
The key factual issues are whether she had become a Canadian citizen when Ted was born and whether she had renounced her US citizenship.
However, even if she had denounced her US citizenship and had become a Canadian citizen, I think that nobody ever will have legal standing for a lawsuit to deny Cruz the Presidency.
Ted Cruz was endorsed by Phil Robertson, which is huge in my book. I will support Ted over Trump.
This is just fraught. Robertson endorses Cruz and Coulter appears to be a Trump Sucker. What to do, what to do?
I am fraught, I say, fraught! Fraught with fraughty fraughtiness!
Perhaps Sean Hannity's endorsement will break the tie. Which of the candidates has garnered the endorsement of the emperor of the gorm free zone?
Chuck:
What do you think was doubtful about Obama's birth-qualifications for the presidency? Obama was born in Hawaii, to a mother (Ann Dunham) who was herself born in Wichita, Kansas. Barack's birth was announced at the time in two Honolulu newspapers.
Eventually I became satisfied with the evidence that Barack Obama was born in the USA and was a natural-born citizen.
When the issue first arose, I thought that some doubts were valid. I thought that perhaps his mother had gone to Canada to give birth.
At one time there the legal definition of "natural-born citizen" included a requirement that his mother had to reside in the USA a certain number of years after her 18th birthday.
Since the US Constitution does include a "natural-born citizen" requirement for the US President, I think that the public should be able to examine the government's best documents about a candidate's birth circumstances.
I do not agree with the Scientific Progressives' argument that the public should be satisfied to receive only a key document's summary made by one clerk who is solely allowed to see the original document. I think that because of the Constitution's birth requirement, Trump was correct to argue that the public should be allowed to see Obama's birth certificate, which was a one-page civil-registry document. Trump helped establish a good precedent against future Presidential candidates' keeping their birth documents unavailable for public examination.
AReasonableMan said...
Trump could care less about Cruz's citizenship, he wants to emphasize his otherness - Cuban/Canadian.
ARM's hearin' that dog whistle, ya'll. Or perro pitido, I guess.
Well, it didn't work for Hillary Clinton in '08, but maybe it'll work for Trump.
jr565
It should have been released to the public, but not being released to the public I'm not sure it was relevant as to whether he was a citizen or not (Obama that is). unless the certificate somehow suggested his mother wasn't a citizen
At one time, the definition of "natural-born citizen" included a requirement that the mother had to have lived in the USA for a certain number of years after her 18th birthday. For that reason, the place of Barack's birth was possibly significant.
Eventually, that issue was resolved to my satisfaction.
On principle, the public should be able to examine the government's best documents about a Presidential candidate's birth circumstances, because of the US Constitution's requirement involving birth circumstances.
I do not agree with the Scientific Progressives' arguments that the public never should be allowed to examine Obama's original birth certificate -- a one-page civil-registry document, the government's very best document about his birth. I do not agree with the argument that a clerk's summary of the original document sufficed in such an important Constitutional issue.
Trump performed a public service by helping to establish a precedent that no future Presidential candidate should be allowed to make his original birth certificate unavailable for public examination.
Mike Sylwester said......I think that nobody ever will have legal standing for a lawsuit to deny Cruz the Presidency.
Maybe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Refusing to swear an oath to the President unless he can prove his eligibility, and ordering all military forces to do the same.
coupe
Maybe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Refusing to swear an oath to the President unless he can prove his eligibility, and ordering all military forces to do the same.
I remember that there was a US Army officer who refused a deployment order because of his doubts that President Obama was a natural-born citizen. That refusal ended badly for the officer.
garage mahal said...
Barack was born in the U.S.A.
Rafael was not.
Please draw out this argument for us. It looks as though you're saying that because Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he is eligible, and because Cruz was born in Canada, Cruz is not. Please draw it out. I want to know what the fuck you're saying.
garage mahal said... Obama himself is the original birther!
Ironically, yes.
Do keep in mind he could have cleared this up very easily and quickly but refused to do so. My guess is he thought it was politically beneficial for him to play this game, and I cannot say this was the wrong assumption.
"Please draw out this argument for us."
I was responding to comparing Cruz to Obama. I don't know, that's why I asked if the courts have ruled on Cruz's situation.
"keep in mind he could have cleared this up very easily and quickly but refused to do so"
Obama owed nothing to the jackals hounding him.
garage mahal said, "I was responding to comparing Cruz to Obama. I don't know, that's why I asked if the courts have ruled on Cruz's situation."
Don't be stupid. I don't give arguments up easily, so try hard here:
You said that Obama was born in the USA, and that Cruz was not. That was your entire post.
Your facts are correct.
What is your argument?
How could the issue of Cruz's citizenship classification get before the courts if almost nobody (maybe nobody) has standing to get it into a federal court? I think that if Trump actually cared about the question (to the extent that it is a question) he would have one of his brain dead lawyers (such as the one who thinks a husband can't rape his wife in New York)file primary ballot challenges in a whole bunch of states. Surely there is a state out there somewhere with a law that defines who is eligible to be on the state's presidential primary ballot. Perhaps Florida would work as the Florida State courts have a history of fucking up decisions relating to election issues. Once there are some bizarre state court decisions maybe an equal protection clause suit would get it before the feds.
Of course, Trump is a ball-less (since Carly cut them off) pussy (are we allowed to use that word?) and doesn't really care.
Cruz is gross-that voice, body and face are unacceptable.
Destroy him Trump.
tits.
You have to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America to qualify for election as President. The United States of America, however, did not come into existence until July 4, 1776.
Prior to that date, anyone born on our soil was born in an English territory. Explain how Presidents Washington (#1) through Andrew Jackson (#7) and President William Henry Harrison (#9), all born before that date, qualified for election.
We don't vote for the persons running for President, we vote for the electors who are responsible for picking the President and Vice President. If they say a person is eligible, then they are. The Constitution only outlines the conditions of eligibility. I doubt the courts would want to interfere with this process.
Titus: "Cruz is gross-that voice, body and face are unacceptable"
I see the Lena Dunham fanclub President has checked in, and who knows 'body and face unacceptability" better than he?
Explain how Presidents Washington (#1) through Andrew Jackson (#7) and President William Henry Harrison (#9), all born before that date, qualified for election.
From the Constitution:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"
The Constitution was adopted in 1789 (drafted in 1787). All those presidents mentioned were citizens of the US under the Articles of Confederation.
Mike Sylwester:
You raised the issue. I'll quote you:
"In the case of Cruz, he should make available to the public all original documents related to his mother's citizenship status when he was born."
We have Eleanor Cruz's US birth certificate. What more could you want? She did not renounce her US citizenship. That is beyond any question. She did not take Canadian citizenship. I'd say that that too is beyond any question, but some do seem to question that. Why, I am not sure. Let's just say that there isn't any good evidence about that. No evidence at all, actually.
I see that you were slow to understand how foolish the Obama/birther controversy was. Perhaps, with time, you'll come around in this one too.
We don't vote for the persons running for President, we vote for the electors who are responsible for picking the President and Vice President. If they say a person is eligible, then they are. The Constitution only outlines the conditions of eligibility. I doubt the courts would want to interfere with this process.
Sounds pretty much correct to me. If there is to be a challenge, it seems that it would have to occur prior to the selection of the electors and that it might have to originate in a state rather then federal venue. Elector selection is a state function "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." I think the feds probably learned their lesson in the wake of Bush v Gore and would be loath to interfere with the process once electors are chosen and probably before. Unless there was a conflict among the states. Perhaps if one state sued another.
garage mahal said...
"keep in mind he could have cleared this up very easily and quickly but refused to do so"
Obama owed nothing to the jackals hounding him.
Good to see you agree with me, then.
It appears the Trumpster is losing some of his fans here. How about that Nikki Haley?! Loved her rebuttal speech.
Blogger CachorroQuente said...
Explain how Presidents Washington (#1) through Andrew Jackson (#7) and President William Henry Harrison (#9), all born before that date, qualified for election.
From the Constitution:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"
Why the comma after " or a citizen of the United Started"?
"Ted Cruz was endorsed by Phil Robertson, which is huge in my book. I will support Ted over Trump."
Says Eric the original Trump fanboy. Too funny, Eric dumps Trump!
Damn auto correct.
Blogger Amanda said...
"Ted Cruz was endorsed by Phil Robertson, which is huge in my book. I will support Ted over Trump."
Says Eric the original Trump fanboy. Too funny, Eric dumps Trump!
I certainly didn't mean to give this impression. I'm a very big fan of Trump. And I think he will make a great President.
But if it comes down to Cruz vs Trump, I'll take Cruz first.
In order, I will vote Cruz, Carson and then Trump. I am glad to see all three men doing well.
Maybe you're confusing me with Eric. There are two of us here. The other guy got the capital E. The punk!
Why the comma after " or a citizen of the United Started"?
BTSOOM. No doubt, the people who wrote this were familiar with standard punctuation practices of the time, which are different from the practices of today. Hell, today some of the people considered to be at least moderately literate (such as Cormac McCarthy)will compose 200 word sentences with no punctuation at all. Doesn't matter, though; clearly, it was the intention to grant exemption to the natural born citizenship requirement for then current citizens. Of course, there's probably a law professor somewhere who is about to write a column for the Whirled Nuts Daily declaring that this is incorrect and that the first presidents were not eligible and that we need a declaratory judgement.
Who the heck is Phil Robertson? Really, sue Ted Cruz? Don't think so.
Vicki from Pasadena
Refusing to swear an oath to the President Nobody swears an oath to the president! The oath is to support the constitution.
I'm guessing this will actually become a deal because Cruz is both Republican and white-hispanic.
And if that weren't enough to seal his fate, he's also conservative which makes him such an embodiment of evil he probably doesn't have a reflection.
A trifecta of evil which must be stopped at all costs.
18 Republicans, and not one has even landed a punch on Trump, who has a football stadium full of baggage. Pathetic.
I think they've landed punches on Trump but he has more supporters, at least so far, than the others and they don't care about the criticisms of him.
Trump rips on Dems and Repubs, which is a good quality and he's never short for material on either party. It's also not at all clear if he's sincere in his beliefs or his delivery is meant for comic effect. It's a bit like watching Andy Kaufman .
Anyway, Trumps most important objective is not to be boring. Running for president should be fun.
"I say no "serious" doubt because there was of course plenty of idiotic brain-dead embarrassing doubt. Like Orly Taitz. And Donald Trump."
Do you include Hillary whose campaign raised the issue after finding Obama's blurbs in his "biography ?"
I was over on Breitbart yesterday and most of the commenters there hate Cruz. They think he is secretly a leftist! Yes, Ted Cruz the leftist! Never mind that he is to the right of Trump on every issue except [maybe] immigration. But therein lies the key. Ann Coulter wasn't kidding when she said she doesn't care what Trump does so long as immigration reform is his main platform.
Blogger Bob Ellison said...
Please draw out this argument for us. It looks as though you're saying that because Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he is eligible, and because Cruz was born in Canada, Cruz is not. Please draw it out. I want to know what the fuck you're saying.
I think that what he is saying is that there are two ways one can be a citizen at birth:
1) You can be born in "The United States". Currently that includes the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam and Marianas. It does not include Samoa or Swain's Island. This is provided for in the 14th Amendment. It cannot be changed except by Amendment, although Congress could change the definition of "The United States"
2) You can be born outside of "The United States", as Cruz was. Then you acquire your citizenship by whatever laws Congress has currently in effect. They could change it tomorrow so that nobody born outside of the US acquires citizenship automatically regardless of parentage.
Cruz is a citizen because of statute. He is not a citizen because of the Constitution.
Assuming his mother had not renounced, had met residency requirements and so on.
Putting all the legality aside, we have 200 years of precedent. We have never had a president born outside of the US. Or, other than McCain, even a major party candidate.
Why start now?
Yes, we had a bunch of presidents born in what became the United States but that case is specifically provided for in the Constitution. A2S1:
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;
John Henry
Of course, Trump is a ball-less (since Carly cut them off) pussy (are we allowed to use that word?) and doesn't really care.
When we call someone a pussy, what do we mean? Do we mean ladyparts? That makes no sense.
I've always thought that it means "pussycat" as in timid, meek, shy.
To avoid problems with too much sex on their minds we should always spell it out.
That way we can be dead nuts accurate before everyone else goes balls out.
John Henry
Blogger Sammy Finkelman said...
Refusing to swear an oath to the President Nobody swears an oath to the president! The oath is to support the constitution.
And we would do well to remember that every time Obama says that he swore an oath to protect us and keep us safe.
He didn't.
He swore an oath (4 times!) to protect the Constitution.A2S1
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The argument, as I understand it, is that without the Constitution, we are doomed and there is no ability to protect any people.
John Henry
Amanda: "It appears the Trumpster is losing some of his fans here. How about that Nikki Haley?! Loved her rebuttal speech"
Her beautiful white teeth didn't scare you like they did garage?
Good for you.
Chuck
She did not renounce her US citizenship. That is beyond any question. She did not take Canadian citizenship. I'd say that that too is beyond any question, but some do seem to question that.
Yes, people are questioning that.
Michael K said...
"I say no "serious" doubt because there was of course plenty of idiotic brain-dead embarrassing doubt. Like Orly Taitz. And Donald Trump."
Do you include Hillary whose campaign raised the issue after finding Obama's blurbs in his "biography ?"
I would, if I thought that they believed it. I think that whoever spread a rumor that Obama's birth somehow disqualified him may well have been playing a political dirty trick without ever believing it was true.
I also don't think that Hillary Clinton actually spread anything like that herself. If the stories are true, the birther claims in the 2008 Dem primary were spread by Hillary sympathizers, and not by Hillary staff. And not Hillary herself.
There were stories in 2000, that John McCain had fathered a mixed-race child out of wedlock. I don't think that anybody thought they were true; in fact the method of spreading the rumor was supposedly a poll question that simply asked if subjects would be less likely to vote for Senator McCain if he had fathered a mixed race child out of wedlock.
In all of this, there are problems for Trump which don't ever go away. Trump apparently really believed that there was an issue with Obama's birth. Trump would not accept the clear fact of Obama's birth to a US citizen mom, in Hawaii. And with Obama and Cruz, Trump is taking on the theories directly and personally. While there is very serious doubt that Hillary was a birther, or that George W. Bush knew about any push polling on a McCain illegitimate child, there is no doubt about Trump's personal wading into the quagmire. Who the hell knows what the guy really believes?
Mike Sylwester I am tempted to ask if there are actually any good questions about whether Eleanor Cruz ever renounced her US citizenship (we know she never took Canadian citizenship, so it would have been pretty weird for her to renounce US citizenship), but honestly, I wouldn't care.
Back in 2008, I grew exhausted with any birther argument in about 30 seconds.
This is no better, except that there does seem to be some interesting 1789 history in the mix, and I find that sort of stimulating.
Just to remind you; I can't remember the last time I voted for any Democrat. I'm a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association. I happily volunteer for the party. I'm no apologist for Obama or for Clinton.
I just don't like stupid arguments; I think they make the party look bad.
Amanda: "It appears the Trumpster is losing some of his fans here. How about that Nikki Haley?! Loved her rebuttal speech"
It was also quite strange how outraged garage was that Nikki Haley took her husbands last name instead of keeping her maiden name.
I wonder what that kind of bizarre reaction on garages part tells us of him?
If anyone is wondering why we haven't seen much of Amanda for the last nine days, the answer is on this comment thread.
If anyone is wondering how she dare appear in public again after that, you're not the only one.
This commentary makes me think that Trump is either a political genius or he has one working for him. By diluting ideology with uncertainty, possible outcomes expand, essentially creating open ground to be seized by the bold and aggressive.
It is already clear that Hillary's strategy is not to lose. That is, to wage such a stage-managed and bland campaign that, with massive cover from the media, she'll avoid losing a significant number of her default voters (LIWV's, Free Stuffers, schlub proles) to the opposition. Trump will campaign aggressively to win. Every football game I've seen, and Hillary's 2008 percent experience, suggests that Trump may very well prevail.
Trump is cleaning house this week. When the GOP has a female relief pitcher throw a fast ball at his head, he looks it over and hits it for a home run.
Poor Haley has ruined her career. I hope the money was worth it.
"traditionalguy"
Quit being so damned boring. It's a bad strategy unless your goal is to prove yourself insufferable. If your goal is to be insufferable, congratulations! You are there. You win. We all know before your Trumposity.
You are quickly reaching "garage mahal" level stupidity.
Chuck
I am tempted to ask if there are actually any good questions about whether Eleanor Cruz ever renounced her US citizenship (we know she never took Canadian citizenship, so it would have been pretty weird for her to renounce US citizenship)
The Canadian Government has the best information, which we still have not seen.
@Chuck
I don't know what McManamon column you're talking about. She did write a Research Paper in Catholic University Law Review with citations, footnotes, etc. Did you read that? The main article is about 30 pages long.
Weevil, I have a life apart from this blog, you insect.
Tank: I freely confess that I have not read Professor McManamon's Catholic University Law Review Article. I read her WaPo column, because that is what was linked in this post for all to read.
A further confession, repeated, from me: My real ire isn't with Prof McManamon. It is, as previously stated, with Trump's obnoxious concern-trolling. Which follows Trump's idiotic Obama birther quest from six or seven years ago.
An even further confession, also repeated: I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep if Ted Cruz were legally disqualified from the presidency. I continue to think that the very best place for Ted Cruz is in the U.S. Senate. For liberals, the best thing for them was to keep Teddy Kennedy in the Senate. I think the same with Cruz.
So scholars as eminent and as ideologically diverse as Neal Katyal, Paul Clement, Eugene Volokh, and Randy Barnett have all concluded that it is a more or less easy call, to say that Cruz is constitutionally qualified for the presidency. None of them get much notice.
Fine, so far – except for the grousing about prominent legal minds being ignored. None of the names he cited are ignored.
In addition, in the weeds, there are partisan-opposites Ted Olson and Lawrence Tribe, arguing that John McCain's birth in the U.S. Canal Zone was not disqualifying for his run for the presidency, and among the qualifying features were his birth to U.S. citizen parents.
Uh-oh. Here we see a shell game. The commentor goes from talking about Cruz and then switches to McCain. Why? The reason may be that Tribe, a constitutional scholar, actually is not sure that the commentor’s lay opinion about Cruz’s(not McCain’s) eligibility is correct:
Tribe, who also taught constitutional law to Cruz and Obama at Harvard, concurred. “I don’t agree that it’s ‘settled law,’” he told ABC News. “The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue one way or the other, as I believe Ted ought to know.”
Not to pile on but there’s others:
“I think there’s a scholarly consensus, but it’s not a done deal,” said Sarah Helene Duggin, a professor at the Catholic University of America, adding that experts aren't unanimous on the issue. “I don’t think it’s open and shut at all.”
http://tinyurl.com/jgo9pgo
I don't believe for a moment that any federal district court, Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court would rule against Cruz on the Article II language.
Hmmm. The commentor seems dead certain about this bit of analysis. I think someone truly knowledgeable would be a bit less arbitrary – more like Tribe and Duggin in the quotes above. The commentor works hard to seem authoritative on constitutional law but he is probably just a laymen like the rest of us. He discounts opinion contrary to his from acknowledged experts and scholars with an airy rhetorical wave of the hand, attacking their credentials for good measure. And that Cruz/McCain switcheroo was cute.
Also, readers, I think the commentor is overlooking an important factor. Are we supposed to believe that no one in America has standing to challenge Cruz’s eligibility? Because that is the commentor’s strong implication in his legal ramblings here and elsewhere. Do any of us believe after thoughtful consideration that any law is ever passed that is totally unassailable and exempt from legal challenges? No, me neither.
And if someone, somewhere does have legal standing do we doubt that the Democrats would ferret them out and make the challenge if Cruz became the nominee? The commentor apparently does. Reality sure is pesky, especially when it runs counter to our treasured fixations.
And I still fail to see why the commentor is so coy about his preference for POTUS. It’s almost like he wants to keep it a secret.
Mike Sylwester: Maybe your are right, about our not having seen all the Canadian documents. Come to think of it, I haven't seen Trump's birth certificate. He's going to be 70 this summer. And still no birth certificate? Has anybody seen his mother's birth certificate? I ask you; how do we know that Trump's mom never renounced her US citizenship? Or that she took dual citizenship? Trump's grandparents were born IN GERMANY! Germany later became infamous as the home of the Nazi party; did you even know that? Then, Frederick Christ Trump lived IN CANADA. Canada and the United States were at war with each other in 1812, and even now, we can't be sure whether Frederick Christ Trump was a Canadian sympathizer when HE LIVED IN CANADA.
I am not saying any of this to attack Mr. Trump. I'm just concerned, that Democrats will eventually use it against him and tie Trump up in court, the same way that that Trump was tied up in court over the "Trump University" scam.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/24/news/donald-trump-university-lawsuit/
Chuck
I am tempted to ask if there are actually any good questions about whether Eleanor Cruz ever renounced her US citizenship (we know she never took Canadian citizenship, so it would have been pretty weird for her to renounce US citizenship)
The Canadian Government has the best information, which we still have not seen.
******************
Not so. In order to renounce your American citizenship you must do so personally in writing at a US consulate or embassy.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html
grackle:
Are you talking to me? You talking to ME? You TALKING to me? Well, I don't see anybody else...
lol. In your anxious fetish over who to support in the Republican primary, you missed the nuance of what I was writing. I was pointing out that THE MEDIA had ignored the solid legal opinions to the effect that Ted Cruz's birthright citizenship was a non-issue. And that, for the media, it only became a national headline when one professor expressed doubt, and when Donald Trump jumped on the issue. It is just that simple. The media didn't care about the story when boring legal experts said it was a non-issue, but got all over it when it became a Trump-related fight.
About the McCain issue; important only in the aspect that I pointed out. And that Neal Katyal and Paul Clement pointed to before I did, and that Ted Olson and Lawrence Tribe commented on explicitly. That John McCain was qualified to be president for two reasons, and possibly two unrelated reasons. (That last part being significant for the Cruz case.) First, McCain was born in the U.S. Canal Zone. Second, McCain's father and mother were U.S. citizens. Just like Ted Cruz's mom was a U.S. citizen. I don't think I will take the time to explain it to you a third time.
About "laymen." I'm not sure if you are talking about law professors (I am not) or lawyers and political scientists (I am). So, whatever. You asked.
A few quotes (because the link is paywalled for Journal subscribers) from today's WSJ editorial page:
"Deport Nikki Haley"
[The headline is a near-quote from an Ann Coulter tweet.]
"Are we talking about the same Nikki Haley? The woman who says 'illegal immigration is not welcome in South Carolina'? Who signed a law toughening the state’s illegal immigration reform act, which requires employers to verify the immigration status of new hires? Who has fought President Obama’s bid to resettle unvetted Syrian refugees? And whose state has joined 16 others in a lawsuit against Mr. Obama for what they say is his unconstitutional executive order on illegal immigration?
...
"The attacks on Ms. Haley show that many on the right these days oppose any immigrants, even those who arrive legally. They also want to make opposition to immigration a GOP litmus test. A party that rejects Nikki Haley as a spokeswoman is one that doesn’t really want to build a governing majority."
There is too much hyperbole going on here. For his part, Trump doesn't seem to oppose all immigration. He's said repeatedly that he'd like to welcome some legal immigrants. But he doesn't say much more than that. Why?
The hyperbolic Twtter-shouting at Nikki Haley is obviously over-the-top. Governor Haley, with solid Republican credentials and even 2010/Tea Party roots in her electoral history, simply asked for a different tone from other Republicans in her SOTU Response. She didn't name Trump, and arguably was talking about Cruz as well as Trump. The Ann Coulter tweet was ridiculous. (I hate saying that about Ann Coulter, whom I have always liked. I fear I'll be disagreeing with Ann Coulter a lot this year.)
With so much hyperbole, it is good to calmly return to the facts. The facts are that Nikki Haley has a solid record on illegal immigration. As the Journal pointed out. She's also been an electoral winner, which (so far) Trump is not.
grackle: … you missed the nuance of what I was writing. I was pointing out that THE MEDIA had ignored the solid legal opinions to the effect that Ted Cruz's birthright citizenship was a non-issue. And that, for the media, it only became a national headline when one professor expressed doubt, and when Donald Trump jumped on the issue.
Excuses, excuses. Now come the bogus qualifications: The commentor didn’t really say what he said, tries to awkwardly shoehorn nonexistent “nuance” into his opinion, etc. No matter, the readers can peruse the commentor’s various offerings here and elsewhere and decide for themselves.
It is just that simple.
First it was too nuanced – now it’s simple.
The media didn't care about the story when boring legal experts said it was a non-issue, but got all over it when it became a Trump-related fight.
Still spinning. When you try to change what you said with after-the-fact bogus qualifications you eventually reach a point where you are saying nothing. Case in point – the laughable stuff below:
About the McCain issue; important only in the aspect that I pointed out. And that Neal Katyal and Paul Clement pointed to before I did, and that Ted Olson and Lawrence Tribe commented on explicitly. That John McCain was qualified to be president for two reasons, and possibly two unrelated reasons. (That last part being significant for the Cruz case.) First, McCain was born in the U.S. Canal Zone. Second, McCain's father and mother were U.S. citizens. Just like Ted Cruz's mom was a U.S. citizen.
Spinning like a top. Still, that Cruz/McCain switcheroo offered in the earlier comment was cuter than a pail of puppies. I almost hated to ruin it for him.
About "laymen." I'm not sure if you are talking about law professors (I am not) or lawyers and political scientists (I am). So, whatever. You asked.
Readers, if this commentor is a lawyer or a political scientist I’m a monkey’s uncle. He tries his best to seem to be knowledgeable but must realize that it’s not working and so he throws out some bogus credentials as cover. The bullshit is getting deep, folks.
I don't think I will take the time to explain it to you a third time.
Explain? Is he talking about that mess of evasion he offered above? I think so. And notice that he carefully steps around my points because he has no answer for those points. And the rascal still won’t tell us who he favors for POTUS. I’m convinced now that for some reason he’s afraid to tell us.
Amanda:
Have you spent the last nine days learning some really basic things about the French language, the shortcomings of OCR-scanned texts, where to go to find information about either of those subjects, or (most important) how to admit error graciously when you have been proven to be utterly and totally wrong about a topic you had plenty of time for as long as you thought you were winning the argument?
If not, you've wasted all your time away, and need to go away again and not come back until you've done all those things. We're both insects in the grand scheme of the universe, but I'm very glad that I'm the weevil and you're the dung beetle.
grackle:
Sigh. I don't care what you think I am.
I don't understand why, if you think I am so low-grade as to falsely claim to be a lawyer, you are so keen on who my personal choice is for the GOP nomination. Maybe you just want a short-form handle on how to condemen me as "GOPe." (Is that the right formulation for that acronym?)
I don't know why that would matter to anyone but you. I'd hate to have to vote for Trump, and I'd have real misgivings about doing so. I think I probably would, since I have almost nothing in common with the Democrats. I'd have a far easier time voting for any real Republican. You want to know how I think about them all? Here are my issues with the members of the Republican field:
~Trump: Is a laughable idiot. If he were a serious candidate, he'd probably be the least-reliable and least-conservative person in the field.
~Cruz: I admire his principled conservatism. I'd happily vote for him. I worry about his electability. I worry about the extreme number of enemies he's made among his Senate colleagues.
~Rubio: The most talented politician in the race. But he's made some bad judgments, as described by George Will, here (must read, for fans and opponents of Rubio alike):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marco-rubios-record-of-bad-judgment/2016/01/13/e668fd40-b959-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
By the way, this year is a real problem for Rubio. He's out of the Florida Senate race. He's all-or-nothing in the race for president. He will not come back to the Senate in 2017. That's a terrible thing in my view. We might lose the Florida seat to Dems this fall. And that is a very big numerical loss.
~Bush: I can't think of many reasons not to support Jeb Bush.
~Christie: I didn't like his post-Sandy embrace of Obama. But that was just optics. What I really hated was the way that he sopped up every federal dollar that they could print for that hurrica- er, tropical sto- er, really bad rainstorm.
~Kasich: He's had a few flubs, in a really great Republican career. He voted for the '94 assault weapons bill. But he's had the good sense to walk that back. He embraced ObamaCare Medicaid expansion for Ohio, which I think was a mistake but one that is more explainable than Christie's Sandy-relief lobbying. Kasich would be my choice for Veep under almost any circumstances. A great, knowledgeable federal budget hawk. And I like his snarl; that's a good
~Fiorina: I so wish that she had won a California Senate seat. She'd be great there. I admire her greatly. I wouldn't mind voting for her. I don't think she'll be the nominee. I do agree with her, that she'd be a great head-to-head opponent to Hillary Clinton.
~Paul: Nope. But I sure do like listening to him. Another great addition to the Senate Republican caucus. (You wonder why I keep talking about Republicans in the Senate? Because those races are hard to win, and they are so important. We need to get close to 60 Republican seats to make big changes in Washington. That means we need winning Republicans in states like Nevada, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, Florida, Connecticut and Ohio. It's not easy; and it is critically important. It makes a difference on filibusters, and on federal judicial confirmations, among a great many other things. Even if you like Donald Trump -- I certainly don't -- you need a party with ten or twelve great candidates for that effort. Like, two handfuls of Nikki Haleys and Marco Rubios.)
~Carson, Huckabee, Santorum, Larry, Moe, Curly and Shemp. Sorry.
As for standing, how about this... some state's Secretary of State decides not to put Cruz's name on the ballot until he can prove eligibility. Now Cruz has to sue, and thus the issue is raised "properly".
That works, no?
I am past sick and tired of the Obama red herring. The issue was, what did his hospital birth certificate say for his citizenship. Obama's mother was a flower child of the sixties that didn't care much for the United States. The issue did she opt out to claim Obama as a citizen of his fathers birth? That is the question. Always has been. How did he get into Columbia? Foreign dirversity recruit?
Any way Cruz is NOT an immigrant, Cruz is NOT a naturalized citizen. There are other classification of people here, that are not in the above classification. The only classification left that matches Cruzis Natural born citizen of the United States.
There have been several attempts to bring Obama's case to the courts and they have all failed for lack of standing, same for Cruz. Its the states and their electors that decide if you can be on the ballot.
Does anyone think that the Republican establishment is leading this distraction? No Republican can go toe to toe with Cruz in any policy debate. And the media (of course) is feeding the distraction.
Grackle: Sigh. I don't care what you think I am. I don't understand why, if you think I am so low-grade as to falsely claim to be a lawyer, you are so keen on who my personal choice is for the GOP nomination.
Readers, at first it was mild curiosity. I was thinking, “Hey, this commentor doesn’t like Trump a lot; I wonder who he does like.” But the commentor studiously ignored the question, even when challenged repeatedly. This type of behavior in debate is what’s known as a ‘tell’ in poker.
Maybe you just want a short-form handle on how to condemen me as "GOPe."
I guess we have the answer to the ‘tell’ below. More on that shortly.
I'd hate to have to vote for Trump, and I'd have real misgivings about doing so. I think I probably would, since I have almost nothing in common with the Democrats.
Well, what do you know: Finally, a bit of rhetoric about Trump and supporters without the ad hominem. Will it last; will future comments from the candidate be “serious,” to use the commentor’s own word? Nope.
Trump: Is a laughable idiot. If he were a serious candidate, he'd probably be the least-reliable and least-conservative person in the field.
“Laughable,” “idiot,” more mindless insults. At least he doesn’t insult Trump’s supporters here. Where the commentor gets the idea that trump is unreliable is a puzzle. Has Trump ever said he would do something that he failed to do? I think we are justified here to demand some sourced examples of Trump being unreliable. Pony up, ‘lawyer,’ or be branded a hollow man. Gotta keep’em honest, folks.
Cruz: I admire his principled conservatism. I'd happily vote for him. I worry about his electability. I worry about the extreme number of enemies he's made among his Senate colleagues.
I somewhat agree. Cruz was one of my early favorites. But as time went by Cruz’s strange, quirky manner of vocal delivery got on my nerves and I gravitated towards Fiorina.
Rubio: The most talented politician in the race. But he's made some bad judgments, as described by George Will …
To my mind Rubio’s worse move was to assume that the folks that voted for him would not notice or find significant his flip-flop on immigration. To them and to potential GOP supporters it branded Rubio as just another wasted vote like so many others that have been sent to DC to fight for the party and promptly proceeded to bow to the enemy. In retrospect I believe Rubio’s chief advantage was to be seen as the GOP equivalent to the youthful JFK. The eGOP has been longing enviously for such a figure ever since the assassination.
I can't think of many reasons not to support Jeb Bush.
How about the fact that Bush probably cannot beat the eventual Democrat nominee? Trump only revealed an obvious weakness with the “low energy” remark that started the downward trend. I will not support Bush now but if he by some miracle wins the nomination I will gladly and enthusiastically flip the voting booth lever for him in the general. I’ll do so proudly and without qualms. The next POTUS will probably nominate one or two people for the SCOTUS and the stakes are high. But at last I have my question answered – the commentor is a Bush-ite. There’s worse things to be than a Bush supporter. For example you could still have leisure suits in your wardrobe, still go through Yahoo to get to the internet or an Atari on your desk.
Christie: I didn't like his post-Sandy embrace of Obama. But that was just optics. What I really hated was the way that he sopped up every federal dollar that they could print for that hurrica- er, tropical sto- er, really bad rainstorm.
Christie is too fat. There, I’ve said it. It’s unfair and it shouldn’t be a disqualifier but there it is. His clothes always seem rumpled, his socks are falling, his shoes scuffed and that waistline continues to expand. Appearances are important in this beauty contest we call politics. Christie was the pre-Trump that paved the way for Trump. However, as in the case of the other candidates I’ll not hesitate to vote for him should he win the nomination.
Kasich: He's had a few flubs, in a really great Republican career. He voted for the '94 assault weapons bill. But he's had the good sense to walk that back.
Sorry, but assaults on my 2nd Amendment rights cannot be walked back. Once a pol goes down that road they are forever after suspect. It’s my personal litmus for any politician wanting my vote. This is perhaps the only GOP candidate where I would hold my nose while voting for him in the general. And here again, like Cruz, I tired early on of his speaking style.
Fiorina: I so wish that she had won a California Senate seat. She'd be great there. I admire her greatly. I wouldn't mind voting for her. I don't think she'll be the nominee. I do agree with her, that she'd be a great head-to-head opponent to Hillary Clinton.
I liked her too; I even contributed money to her campaign; her folks still call me and send eMails but she stubbornly claimed to see a video that did not exist, became an easy target for the MSM and that was her downfall. She hurt the anti-Planned Parenthood sentiment that was growing at the time and that is now without much force. Us pro-lifers are mighty disappointed. Yes, it really is too bad.
Paul: Nope. But I sure do like listening to him. Another great addition to the Senate Republican caucus.
Somewhat my own sentiments, but to quote Krauthammer, “Rand Paul ran into ISIS and he never recovered.”
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा