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: 10943
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
#11. To: TooConservative (#0)
(Edited)
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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
There are no replies to Comment # 33. End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
#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 .
#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
Replies to Comment # 33.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]