ConservativeReview: Levin explains the legal doctrine of jus sanguinis – Latin for right of blood. Levin explains that under U.S. law a person who’s mother is an American citizen at the time of their birth is a citizen at birth. This means that that person is a natural born citizen. Both Ted Cruz and Barack Obama’s mothers were citizens at their birth. Both men meet the natural born citizenship test of the Constitution.
See Also—
Carpenter: The Really Precarious Thing About Trump’s Birther Claims.
In fact, Trump seemed to agree with these top lawyers when he was asked about Cruz’s citizenship at a rally Trump and Cruz appeared at together last September. “I hear it was checked out by every attorney and every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape,” Trump said…
If they really are their mothers!
Yeah, except that NO ONE recalls EVER seeing Stanley Ann preggers.
or moose either, for that matter
Greetings!
These essays should settle the question of natural born citizenship.
http://www.thecompleteobamatimeline.com/uploads/3/5/7/4/3574872/a_country_without_a_president.pdf
http://www.thecompleteobamatimeline.com/uploads/3/5/7/4/3574872/reportonnaturalborncitizenfraud.pdf
Salve
Except for the fact that Soetoro spawned before the law was changed.
Stanley wasn’t old enough to confer citizenship, so they told us.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/25/of-naturalized-and-natural-born-the-courts-point-of-view/
http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/25/of-naturalized-and-natural-born-the-courts-point-of-view/
This is a case of “it was before it wasn’t”, or the reverse actually. It has ALWAYS been that Americans, including politicians, understood that a person had to (at the least) be native born to qualify as “natural-born.” Always. Until obama. Then even obama made the point that although he was born a dual citizen, he at least was born in HI, so he was native born. To split hairs would be to determine if “native-born” and “natural-born” are EXACTLY the same.
At the time the Constitution was ratified, in the case of native born citizens to citizen parents there was of course, no question. Now, if there was a child born to a French family here on a visit (1788ish) was it a natural-born American citizen? Was an American child born in England to American parents (1788ish) a natural-born citizen?
I know the answer to the second. It was “no”. A child born to US parents abroad (visiting) was in fact an alien. This is why the provision was created in the Naturalization Act of 1790. A statute gave those children US citizenship.
I hear Rush insulting the “birthers”. So, apparently individuals who have read period diaries, journals, law publications, Congressional records, etc., are just some stupid rubes. Hundreds of hands on research over many years, and I know “less” about the topic than someone who listened to Levin’s take on it.
To suggest that the clause has such a fluid intent as to allow for persons born (to non-military or US Ambassadors) in other countries to one citizen parent is very progressive.
To clarify. Back in the early days of this country, a child born out of the country, to a US Ambassador, or those who were in service to their country, obtained their US citizenship without virtue of a statue. There is plenty of material on that.
(And my post should have read, “hundreds of hands on hours of research”)
In short, despite Trump’s musings, Cruz is constitutionally and by statute eligible for the nation’s top elected office.
It’s worth noting that Trump seems to be following the same political playbook as Obama, using radical leftist tactics drawn from Saul Alinsky for his own political gain. Suggesting Cruz’s ineligibility for the presidency, for example, aims to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty among the “enemy” — Alinsky’s third rule. Throw a grenade and watch the scramble.
In truth, Trump’s raising the citizenship issue says more about where his own campaign is heading than it does about Cruz’s eligibility.
http://patriotpost.us/digests/39884
But, but, what will all the GOPe, progressives, socialists and trolls talk about now?
Could it be the enormous national debt, murder of the unborn, obama’s failed economic, national and international policies, black on black crime, the Constitution, islamic terrorists, ATF gun running to mexico, hillary’s money laundering foundation, hillary’s deleted e-mail, Benghazi, bergdahl, demise of our military, obama’s insane nuclear deal with Iran, over-reaching the laws by federal agencies, etc, etc. ?????
Probably not.
Trump said that Cruz had better put this to rest right away. Trump knows the Dems will make an issue out of it, ignoring Obama’s eligibility. Sounds to me Trump wants Cruz on his Veep list.
Trump’s appeal dropped a lot with his choice to use this leftist tactic.
But the framers did not use the “definition” in US law, they used the definition international law at the time, “Born in country of parents who are citizens” Do changes is US law now change the Constitution? I thought there was an amendment process for that!
So you believe, for example, a child born to US citizen parents stationed at US military bases in Britain , Germany, Japan, Korea etc would not be a natural born US citizen. Nonsense.
Personally I would never vote for a a person born to US citizen parents in a foreign country if that person lived their entire childhood out of country and wasn’t culturally American. Legal or not I would only vote for a US citizen with an American soul.
Trump is pulling a Breitbart.
In order to maintain the phony shield around Obola, the Demonrats must defend Cruz, and Cruz’s Menshevik opponents will either defend him, or equivocate and make themselves look like petulant pussies.
Since the issue of the relative credibility of participants in this debate has been raised, I have to admit that I, too, base a lot on just that. On one hand, I see respected law professors like William Jacobson of legalinsurrection.com and Cornell University, Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy and UCLA School of Law, and Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, who all say Cruz is a natural born citizen, eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States. Add to that list two former U.S. Solicitors General, who are also widely honored and esteemed law professors, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement of Georgetown Law School, who have penned a Harvard Law Review article detailing why they believe Cruz is eligible: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
All of these gentlemen have professional reputations to uphold, and they make their assertions publicly, in their own names. I have seen no articles, nor heard any publicly made statements by similarly credentialed legal experts who believe Cruz does not qualify. What I have seen are several people commenting on Twitter and website comment boards under pseudonyms, who assert that Cruz is not eligible. Guess whose opinions hold more weight, at least with me?
I had really hoped the Supreme Court would settle it, so we could forget this nonsense, but Levin seems to think that won’t happen. Too bad.
Folks are forgetting about an amendment. Most don’t know about the dozen attempts made to amend Art. 2, sect.5. Since 1970 I think. In those attempts our elites weighed passing laws to get around having to get an amendment, but it was pointed out that those statutes and laws can be challenged in court.
There has always been an exemption for US diplomats, Ambassadors, and those in service to our country. From the beginning.
If the Supreme Court won’t settle it, it isn’t settled.
SCROTUS is a collection of corrupt, weasel, fucknugget, paid, maggot, shysters. Remember Dred Scott?
Fuck those assholes.
(Not literally, of course …
you don’t wanna catch nuthin)