politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Donald Trump: Ted Cruz's citizenship could 'be a big problem'
Source:
USA Today
URL Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ ... z-canada-citizenship/78325076/
Published: Jan 5, 2016
Author: David Jackson
Post Date: 2016-01-05 20:32:38 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 10987
Comments: 47
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz during a recent debate in Las Vegas. (Photo: AP) Birther-ism, Part II? Donald Trump, who famously questioned whether President Obama was really born in Hawaii, is now raising questions about the Canadian birth of Republican presidential campaign rival Ted Cruz. “Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’" Trump told The Washington Post in reference to the Texas senator. "That’d be a big problem ... It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.” While born in Canada, Cruz and allies have said he is eligible for the presidency because his mother's status as an American citizen made him a citizen upon his birth. His father was born in Cuba. Since his election to the U.S. Senate from Texas in 2012, Cruz has released his birth certificate and renounced his Canadian citizenship. Still, some critics of Cruz have suggested taking the issue to court. “I’d hate to see something like that get in his way," Trump told the Post. "But a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport.” Trump made the comments as Cruz has passed him in polls in Iowa, which opens the GOP nomination process with caucuses on Feb. 1. Cruz responded to Trump's jibe with a tweet showing a famous scene from the 1970s sitcom Happy Days, one in which the character Fonzie jumps over a school of sharks on water skis — inspiring the term "jump the shark," used to describe the moment at which a television show begins to lose its quality. My response to @realDonaldTrump calling into question my natural-born citizenship? https://t.co/gWfAHznlCY— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) January 5, 2016 Poster Comment: 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Trump is turning the entire race into a joke. We may as well get used to having the Xlintons back in the White House until they're ninety.
"Trump is turning the entire race into a joke". -- TC agrees, while making a whitty aside.... Get over it boys. Trumps gonna win the nomination, and the white house.
Or Trump will destroy the GOP entirely. And Hitlery will pack the Court with her puppets. Then we won't have to discuss anything because that will be illegal too. Trump seems to be poisoning the well, trying to make all other candidates unable to be the nominee. Not beat them but make it impossible for any other candidate to be nominated at all. You have to wonder who will be his VP pick, who would serve in his cabinet or the thousands of appointed jobs.
Get over it boys. Trumps gonna win ---- Control your hype.. The gop can't be destroyed, -- Hopefully, it will be changed. More hype. Barring total economic collapse, the republic will muddle on. What else is new? That's how the game is played.. I'd bet Cruz will jump at being VP ,and there will be no shortage of eager patriots willing to work for Trump, -- and to hold his feet to the conservative line.
Roberts, Souter?
Not beat them but make it impossible for any other candidate to be nominated at all. Trump plays to win. Are you going to vote for Trump or Hillary?
It's already destroyed. There is no quality control or minimum requirements to be met to become a Republican.
Clearly you are delusional. How many times have we heard that claptrap? It's like the GOPe's greatest hits albums. "Give us the House,then we can do something." "The House isn't enough, you must give us the Senate and then we'll really do something." "Holding the House and Senate isn't enough, you have to give us the White House too and then we'll really do something." How is it that the GOPe only cares about us when they need us and keeping their promises doesn't mean a damned thing? 2016 looks like a re-run of 2000. Same empty insincere promises.
I can't imagine voting for either. I might turn out to vote for Cruz as nominee (not as VP). Other than that, I expect I won't bother to vote in 2016. I didn't vote in 2014 either. Same reason: nothing at stake.
Then you are willing to let Hitlery pick all of those judges that you just complained about. We will do the heavy lifting for you.
It is good that Trump raised the issue. The issue of "natural born" SHOULD have been resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Obama, but the Republicans (who control the Court and both houses of Congress) have studiously avoided the question for 8 years. Obama was born in Kenya, probably. The Hawaii birth certificate is a fraud, probably. If that's so - and it was never investigated under oath with cross before a tribunal that could deny Obama the right to be on the ballot for election or re-election - then under the law of 1961, Obama wasn't an American citizen at birth. But Cruz was, through his mother, even if born in Canada. That is IF the citizenship of parents is the deciding factor. If being born on US soil is what is required for "natural born" to be fulfilled, then neither Cruz nor Obama are eligible. This issue was never decided by the Supreme Court. It was dodged for Obama, not resolved. Trump, to his credit, did not let go of it. He asked the question about Obama, and was dismissed as another crazy "Birther". Well, the Birthers aren't crazy. They have a point - an important one - and that point should have already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Obama got away with it, but that doesn't mean that the issue has been resolved by precedent. Chester Arthur may have gotten away with it too, but the question remains legally unanswered. It ought to be answered. Trump raised it regarding Obama. He just raised it regarding Cruz - same issue - and it's a LEGITIMATE question that NEEDS an answer. By bringing it up, Trump put the issue back in play. In a Trump presidency, it will be resolved properly before a court, or by an executive interpretation which will require a court or act of Congress to overturn. We have deserved to know the final legal answer to this question since 2008. Trump is doing good service by bringing it back up. I know what I think the answer SHOULD be, but my opinion is not writ. Supreme Court decision is, and we need one of those. In this more-and-more immigrant-filled world, we need to know, beforehand, exactly who is and who is not eligible to run for President, stated in 21st Century language, in full detail. The "natural born" clause of the Constitution has turned into a cypher. We need to give it bones, flesh...and teeth.
The only judge he has ever praised is his sister, a pro-abortion extremist. Until quite recently, Trump himself was on record as a pro-abortion extremist, not merely content to be quiet about it or lightly pro-abortion. He was quite aggressively pro-abortion and even favored partial-birth abortion. It is pure magical thinking to think that Trump will appoint judges the Right will find acceptable.
Correct. He was a U.S. citizen at birth because his mother was a U.S. citizen. But not a natural born citizen (IMO) which is the issue. If the sta the status the status of the mother is the determining factor, then why all the hoopla about where Obama was born? Are we now saying the place of birth makes no difference as long as the mother is a U.S. citizen? First time I've heard that argument. I don't have the answer. No one does. The Supreme Court has not defined a natural born citizen. Meaning Trump is 100% correct -- this could be a potential stumbling block.
He can do that? I thought the Senate had to approve his picks.
"Give us the House,then we can do something." "The House isn't enough, you must give us the Senate and then we'll really do something. something." "Holding the House and Senate isn't enough, you have to give us the White House too and too and then we'll really do something." How is it that the GOPe only cares about us when they need us and keeping their promis promises doesn't mean a damned thing? I can't quite figure out your point of view. Up thread, you said this: And then you go on and badmouth the GOP. (criticisms I happen to agree with, btw) btw). The gop is supposed to be an opposition party, but it does not oppose. It is su supposed to be small gov't, but it's not. It is supposed to honor the Co Constitution, but it gives us Roberts and Kennedy. And I could go on. The gop needs to be destroyed. If Trump is the one to do it, more power to him. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
somethings wrong with this software today. not posting correctly
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
Both of Marco Rubio's parents were Cuban citizen, making him an anchor baby. Rick Santorum's father Aldo was an Italian citizen, another anchor baby. cdrkerchner.wordpress.com...esponse-re-aldo-santorum/ The GOPe loves them some "guest worker" presidents. I've had the same problem posting here after I switched to Windows 10. The auto-word-wrap doesn't function correctly. The workaround is to hit 'Enter' after each line.
The legal definition of natural-born is enacted by Congress. They've changed it a number of times, including early in the Republic when the Founders were still around and serving in Congress and as prez. There was a major change in natural-born status that occured a few years after McStain was born. It wasn't clear if it was retroactive which is why the Stain asked for a Senate resolution to confirm his own status back in 2007. The idea that the Court is the sole arbiter of NB status is ridiculous. As was Vicomte's earlier nonsensical post about it. But then, the Birthers are led by the mail-order legal scholar (and dentist and real estate agent), Oily Teatz, so you can't expect much.
It has been hiccuping since last night. After trying for a post or article, it was diverting to the Bad Configuration response page. I haven't gotten it this morning though. I thought Neil had it fixed.
Perhaps. But it is not magical thinking to believe that Trump will build the wall, deport illegals, stop Muslim immigration for a time, to get better security in place, make a deal with the Russians to stop the nonsense Cold War we're inching back into and instead cooperate, ensure universal health insurance without having it all be through Obamacare, and to end the carried interest deduction for rich financiers. All of those things are good in and of themselves, and none of the Democrats or other Republicans will do those things. He will.
Sole? No. Final? Yes. At least that's how it's been up to this point. Need I cite all the U.S. Supreme Court cases? Moot point. The fact that we're arguing proves Trump's point -- this issue of 'natural born citizenship' has NOT been settled and may jeopardize the election of Cruz.
The idea that Congress can simply define terms in the Constitution without being subject to judicial review is what is ridiculous. You don't want to fight out the birther issues? I do. I think Obama was ineligible because he wasn't BORN American. He was, rather, naturalized retroactively, by act-of-law, when the law was changed, after his birth, to say that children born in his circumstance were born American. Cruz was born after the law change, so I think he IS a natural-born citizen. But that is not certain, and cannot be certain, unless the Supreme Court rules on it. The Court, the Republicans, the Democrats, and people like you, have shucked and jived on this issue since Obama turned up. I want it resolved definitively and absolutely, by a Supreme Court precedent. It's a constitutional matter relating directly to the most powerful office in the world, and it simply will not do to leave it dangling. You're fine with leaving it dangling, and then having to have this wrangling. I'm not. And no, in our system, a law passed by Congress NEVER finally answers the question. Neither does an Executive order. Only the Supreme Court is FINAL. That's why it will take a Supreme Court decision to SETTLE the issue. Congress doing this or that, ad hoc, does not settle the issue. The Supreme Court needs to acknowledge that Congress has acted within its power, and then answer the direct issue of eligibility. We need a precedent that cannot be gainsayed, and we don't currently have one. Your calling me an idiot and a mail-order legal scholar is hyperventilating. I am a very good student of the law who has made a living in it for a long time. I speak with licensed authority that you don't have when I say that this issue is UNSETTLED. It is NOT settled, no matter how much you assert, and reassert that it is, and no matter how much ridicule you pour on it. This is why I like Trump so much. He speaks to things like this, and overturns the applecarts of people like you, who want to simply shout down issues as opposed to NAILING them down with iron precedent. The office of President is too powerful to leave any wiggle room. This needs to be NAILED DOWN, to remove these doubts, and to foreclose candidacies that should not be launched. It's important. It was important, but we punted (aided by you). You want to punt again. Trump isn't going to let the issue go away. The Republicans SHOULD have fought to the death over the matter when it was Obama. But they didn't. So the issue lingers. And therefore Trump can pull the pin on this grenade AGAIN, and potentially blow out Cruz AND Rubio with it by unleashing a civil war on the right between mockers like you, and people like me who are never going to go away on the issue, or back down, until we have a legal opinion from the final authority - the Supreme Court - which sets what the law is. Birthers like me are not all mail-order legal scholars. Many of us are actual legal scholars. And when I say there is a valid legal point, there is a valid legal point, an unsettled one. Orly Taitz agrees - and that's great. But she's not important. Donald Trump is important, and he just opened the issue again, tearing open all of the wounds. You're not going to get peace on the issue until you guys cave, let it get before the Supremes, and let the Supremes write down the answer, nailing down for the next century WHO, precisely, is "natural born".
Obama was born in Kenya, probably. The Hawaii birth certificate is a fraud, probably. If that's so - and it was never investigated under oath with cross before a tribunal that could deny Obama the right to be on the ballot for election or re-election - then under the law of 1961, Obama wasn't an American citizen at birth. But Cruz was, through his mother, even if born in Canada. That is IF the citizenship of parents is the deciding factor. If being born on US soil is what is required for "natural born" to be fulfilled, then neither Cruz nor Obama are eligible. I wrote this is 2008 when this birther nonsense 1st erupted . The law may have changed since then ;but I don't think so. Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. CodeSec 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth": -Anyone born inside the United States -Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe -Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. -Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national -Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year -Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 -Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) -A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. So even if the evidence shows that he was born outside the US and his Hawaii birth certificate was a fraud ;he would still be qualified . No SCOTUS should not rule on it . The problem is that the other 2 requirements are unambiguous ;while this 'natural born' provision is open to interpretation based on what we think the founders meant by it. I don't want to waste time arguing intent ;or what the historic definition of 'natural born ' means .The truth is that we are well past the time that the Constitution should be amended to clear up the issue. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You're a pretty lousy mouthpiece if you don't know that Congress has always provided the definition of NB status. The Constitution requires only that a prez be natural-born but it does not and never has defined what NB is. Congress defines that and they have changed their minds a number of times, expanding the definition generally. If Obama is ineligible, it was due to his mother's age, not the location of his birth. Congress defines NB. The Court only resolves oversights and special cases in NB cases. That you think otherwise tells me you don't know much about the law and about history. This notion that you are peddling that it is the Court's job to define NB and that they've just been avoiding it is just silly.
Vic thinks only the Court can possibly define NB status. So those uppity laws you're quoting that have been on the books for so long are meaningless, as were the prior laws defining NB status. Strangely enough, the Court never struck down all those NB laws Congress kept passing and, in the handful of cases they did hear, they only interpreted the NB laws as written by Congress.
No SCOTUS should not rule on it . The problem is that the other 2 requirements are unambiguous ;while this 'natural born' provision is open to interpretation based on what we think the founders meant by it. I don't want to waste time arguing intent ;or what the historic definition of 'natural born ' means .The truth is that we are well past the time that the Constitution should be amended to clear up the issue. Maybe you think this law settles it, but it doesn't. Look at the date when that law, Title 8 Sec. 1401 was put into place in the form that contains the language you bolded. Look at the date. Now look at the date of Obama's birth. You've made a legal argument, so surely you see the legal issue. This version of the statute was put into place after Obama's birth. When Obama was born - IF he was born in Kenya (if he was born in Hawaii the question does not turn on the law you have cited but on the application of the 14th Amendment), under the law that existed at the time of his birth his mother's American citizenship was insufficient to give him citizenship at birth, due to her young age and inadequate time in the US as an adult. Had the law never been revised to read what you posted, and if what Obama USED to allow to be said on his book covers and in articles about him - that he was born in Kenya - then he most certainly was NOT natural born. A child born under his circumstances in 1961 was not a US citizen. The law changed later, so a child born TODAY under the same conditions. The question of whether or not the law applies retroactively to Obama is the first question. But even if it does, that STILL does not answer the constitutional question of whether or not a retroactive granting of citizenship because of a subsequent law change establishes NATURAL BORN status, as a matter of constitutional law, or whether it merely acts as a post-hoc naturalization of somebody who was born a foreigner. THAT question IS NOT ANSWERED by the law as it is now, and has never been answered. And it CANNOT be answered definitively by Congress - the Supreme Court could always disagree as a constitutional matter. But in any case, the Congress NEVER ADDRESSED the specific question of constitutional natural-born eligibility-for-President status in ANY of the various law changes. So yes, the law as it CURRENTLY exists means that somebody born abroad of an American parent TODAY is born an American citizen. Whether or not that means "natural born" for Presidential eligibility purposes is not clear and has never been spelled out. I think it does, but I cannot assert that it is absolutely clear - and neither can you - because it is not clear. Cruz is in this situation, I believe. Born in Canada of an American parent after the law change. Natural born or not? Arguments can go either way, but should be made, and decided. At least Congress should include the words "Natural Born" in the statutes, to make CLEAR that they intend to include Presidential eligibility under the Constitution in their scope of legislation. But that STILL does not answer the problem of Obama's post-hoc nationalization. DOES that law apply retroactively? And if it does, does it merely effect a by-law naturalization, or does it readjust the status to natural born? Because of your angry tone, I know that you are already CERTAIN of the answer. You can be as certain as you like, but your certitude does not constitute settled law. Supreme Court opinions, like Roe and Casey and their ilk, are what make settled law. We have had 8 years of this argument over Obama, and now we're going to have it over Cruz and Rubio, and maybe even Trump (HIS mom was born in Scotland). The argument will continue until the law is settled, and THAT requires a Supreme Court decision. Your side's simply shouting down people like me who are raising legitimate legal issues has not been persuasive, because you don't address the issues. You merely assert power and majority rule. The question of retroactive citizenship and natural born/naturalization status has never been adjudicated. It's an open question that needs to be resolved. The question of birth citizenship versus "Natural born" definitions also needs to be made clear. Congress could make things clearer by using the specific constitutional language, but they haven't. And that raises all sorts of confusion and stress. If Trump wins, this issue will be investigated and vetted. He took a position on the issue and got a lot of heat from it. Once he has power and controls the Justice Department, he will have the last laugh, because he can command the authorities to unseal, to probe, to go and get records that have been obscured, and he can force the issues into public via the Attorney General and the Justice Department, and force the issues before the courts - and appoint judges who will rule to move forward on the matters instead of squashing them. One fun reason to elect Trump is because he will bring clarity to the issue of who CAN be President. Since this issue seems to make people irrationally angry and closed minded, having the full authority of the President, the Justice Department and Trump-appointed judges stating that yes, this IS an issue, from the highest offices of the land, cuts the ground out from those who have ridiculed the Birthers for all of these years and turns the tables. That alone isn't reason enough to vote for him, but it's a nice Easter Egg we will get from his victory.
Cite me "all those laws" that use the specific term "Natural Born". It's an important term. It's like "Declaration of War" - a term that has specific meaning. If you don't declare war but do a police action, the law is different. If an immigration and naturalization statute speaks of birth right citizenship but doesn't use "natural born", that law is not addressing the specific narrow matter of constitutional eligibility for the Presidency.
I am not going to spend the day on your idiocy. The Court has always declined every opportunity to define NB itself. It has had plenty of chances to do so.
if I sound angry ,it is because there were real legitimate issues as reasons to vote against the emperor but our side got obsessed with a non-issue. I also knew very well that the left would not leave the issue alone ,and now we have good candidates who have to deal with the same nonsense . Like TooConservative ,I don't want SCOTUS to be the final arbiter on this issue any more than them making the call during the 2000 election . They had no business deciding 'Bush v Gore' . Actually I don't like them as 'final arbiter ' in any case . 'Marbury v Madison' may be the worse decision even made . No I think the eligibility issue should be finally decided by amendment ;and while we are at it ,there should be term limits and mandatory retirement age for Federal justices . Here is NY Federal Judges are getting older and more senile by the minute ;many of them already in their 90s . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Hear, hear. Don't forget the Senate. I'm surprised they haven't had to hire teams of interns to keep them in fresh Depends. We need mandatory retirement in these powerful federal jobs, no older than 70.
i'm an exbirther love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
The Court has always declined every opportunity to define NB itself. It has had plenty of chances to do so. That's fine. Trump has brought up the issue and applied it to Cruz. Others will go further and apply it to Rubio. Once Trump wins, he'll have the Justice Department prepare a proper brief on it that addresses the issues. Your ilk has managed to shout folks like me down on the issue for a long time. But your ilk is going to lose this time. Now, I think that when it is decided on the facts and the law, the court will come down on the side of natural born citizenship for whomever is born an American. That may exclude Obama, if he was born in Kenya, but it will be a moot point by then.
Of course, the real reason you gave me that curt response is that when you went to find the immigration laws that had "natural born" in it, your search ended with the first Judiciary Act. So, when you looked, you discovered that I was right about the point I was making. And I enrage and disgust you, so you're never going to concede something like that to me. Instead, you just insulted me and walked away. It's an example of how divided and angry Americans are. We cannot agree, or cooperate, or be civil. So it's a verbal war...one that the more numerous win.
I don't like them as final arbiter either. I suppose that the people are the final arbiter, because of the ability to amend the Constitution. But that ability is a mirage, because it has to be done through Congress, which is corrupt, unless it is done by an Article V Convention of the States, which merely means shifting the corruption. Any really grand vision of reform would have to reduce the power of government in an absolute sense, but there is not much appetite for that, because any change of government means a change in wealth distribution, as government is the biggest player in the economy.
at this point I'd be willing to take the risk of an Art V convention . We certainly could never get Congress to pass an amendment on Congressional term limits. Unlike some ;I think a runaway convention could be avoided . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Last night the server locked up due to another site on the same server getting into a runaway error situation that was flooding the HD with errors that eventually took up all the disk space. I traced it and shut down the offending web site. The same thing happened a few days ago. I freed up HD space but didn't ID the cause then. This had nothing to do with the DOS attacks suffered by Linode recently. The two events happening at the same time is certainly coincidental. I thought I caught the problem timely, so didn't post anything about it. But there it is.
I wasn't complaining, just thought you'd want a heads up.
No complaint assumed. I appreciate it when people notice.
Something I can agree with you on. I take your side. But the other side has some points to. Consistency being the main one. What about inconsistencies in rulings if comeone doesn't decicde it. Should we just let the inconsistencies pass?
Comments (42 - 47) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: TooConservative, Hondo68, trump16, y'all (#1)
To: hondo68 (#0) (who has a big problem with being trumped)
#3. To: tpaine (#2)
#4. To: TooConservative (#3)
Or Trump will destroy the GOP entirely.
And Hitlery will pack the Court with her puppets. --- Then we won't have to discuss anything because that will be illegal too.
Trump seems to be poisoning the well, trying to make all other candidates unable to be the nominee.
Not beat them but make it impossible for any other candidate to be nominated at all. --- You have to wonder who will be his VP pick, who would serve in his cabinet or the thousands of appointed jobs.
#5. To: TooConservative (#3)
And Hitlery will pack the Court with her puppets.
#6. To: TooConservative (#3)
Trump seems to be poisoning the well, trying to make all other candidates unable to be the nominee.
#7. To: TooConservative (#3)
Or Trump will destroy the GOP entirely.
#8. To: tpaine (#4)
and there will be no shortage of eager patriots willing to work for Trump, -- and to hold his feet to the conservative line.
#9. To: A K A Stone (#6)
Are you going to vote for Trump or Hillary?
#10. To: TooConservative (#9)
I can't imagine voting for either.
#11. To: TooConservative (#0)
(Edited)
#12. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13, Tomder55 (#10)
Then you are willing to let Hitlery pick all of those judges that you just complained about.
#13. To: hondo68 (#0)
"While born in Canada, Cruz and allies have said he is eligible for the presidency because his mother's status as an American citizen made him a citizen upon his birth."
#14. To: TooConservative (#12)
"It is pure magical thinking to think that Trump will appoint judges the Right will find acceptable."
#15. To: hondo68 (#0)
#16. To: TooConservative (#8)
(Edited)
It's like the GOPe's greatest hits albums.
Trump will destroy the GOP entirely.
#17. To: All (#16)
#18. To: misterwhite, GOP anchor babies (#13)
Are we now saying the place of birth makes no difference as long as the mother is a U.S. citizen?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#19. To: Rufus T Firefly (#17)
"somethings wrong with this software today. not posting correctly"
#20. To: misterwhite, SOSO, Vicomte13 (#13)
I don't have the answer. No one does. The Supreme Court has not defined a natural born citizen. Meaning Trump is 100% correct -- this could be a potential stumbling block.
#21. To: Rufus T Firefly, Pinguinite (#17)
somethings wrong with this software today. not posting correctly
#22. To: TooConservative (#12)
It is pure magical thinking to think that Trump will appoint judges the Right will find acceptable.
#23. To: TooConservative (#20)
"The idea that the Court is the sole arbiter of NB status is ridiculous."
#24. To: TooConservative (#20)
(Edited)
The idea that the Court is the sole arbiter of NB status is ridiculous. As was Vicomte's earlier nonsensical post about it.
#25. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#11)
The issue of "natural born" SHOULD have been resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Obama, but the Republicans (who control the Court and both houses of Congress) have studiously avoided the question for 8 years.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
The idea that Congress can simply define terms in the Constitution without being subject to judicial review is what is ridiculous.
#27. To: tomder55, Vicomte13, nolu chan (#25)
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. CodeSec 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth":
#28. To: tomder55 (#25)
So even if the evidence shows that he was born outside the US and his Hawaii birth certificate was a fraud ;he would still be qualified .
#29. To: TooConservative (#27)
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
If an immigration and naturalization statute speaks of birth right citizenship but doesn't use "natural born", that law is not addressing the specific narrow matter of constitutional eligibility for the Presidency.
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
#32. To: tomder55 (#31)
'Marbury v Madison' may be the worse decision even made .
No I think the eligibility issue should be finally decided by amendment ;and while we are at it ,there should be term limits and mandatory retirement age for Federal justices . Here is NY Federal Judges are getting older and more senile by the minute ;many of them already in their 90s .
#33. To: TooConservative (#32)
I give up
monkies can be president
as far as the voters decide
boris
#34. To: TooConservative (#30)
I am not going to spend the day on your idiocy.
#35. To: TooConservative (#30)
I am not going to spend the day on your idiocy.
#36. To: tomder55 (#31)
Actually I don't like them as 'final arbiter ' in any case . 'Marbury v Madison' may be the worse decision even made . No I think the eligibility issue should be finally decided by amendment ;and while we are at it ,there should be term limits and mandatory retirement age for Federal justices . Here is NY Federal Judges are getting older and more senile by the minute ;many of them already in their 90s .
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
But that ability is a mirage, because it has to be done through Congress, which is corrupt, unless it is done by an Article V Convention of the States, which merely means shifting the corruption.
#38. To: TooConservative (#21)
#39. To: Pinguinite (#38)
#40. To: TooConservative (#39)
#41. To: tomder55, nolu chan (#31)
(Edited)
Actually I don't like them as 'final arbiter ' in any case . 'Marbury v Madison' may be the worse decision even made .
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]