“Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution’s structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute or any other issue of presidential eligibility. Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.
Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever. They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge. In legal jargon, the issue is a “nonjusticiable political question.”
“OK, so voters and Congress decide, but what is the right answer to the Cruz question and how can ordinary citizens deduce this right answer?
Simple: We can read the Constitution, which was written for ordinary citizens. And then we can fold in a few simple points about constitutional history, tradition and common sense.”
“How else can a person be a citizen at birth? Simple. From the founding to the present, Congress has enacted laws specifying that certain categories of foreign-born persons are citizens at birth. The earliest statute, passed in 1790, explicitly called certain foreign-born children of U.S. citizens “natural born citizens.” It did not say they should be treated “as if” they were “natural born citizens.” It said they were in law deemed and declared to be “natural born citizens.” Congressional laws have changed over the years, but this 1790 law makes clear that from the beginning, Congress by law has the power to define the outer boundaries of birth-citizenship by conferring citizenship at birth to various persons born outside the United States.
And here is the key point: The statute on the books on the day Cruz was born made him a citizen on that day.”
“He was born a citizen. He is a citizen because of the way he was born. And all this is clear if we look at the relevant citizenship law that was on the books on the day of his birth. Read it for yourself: Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 235-36; Title III, ch. 1, section 301(a)(7). (Note that Cruz’s mother apparently met the requirement of the law to have lived in the United States at least five years after age 14; she was in her 30s when Cruz was born.)
But what about that word I asked you to put aside for a moment — the word, “natural”? Does that word change the analysis?
No. That word confirms the analysis. First, the word itself derives from Latin and French roots that are about birth. The word is arguably redundant (in the way that much of language is). In effect, the Constitution says that a president must be a “birth-born citizen.” But the word “natural” does add a key clarification: Congress is empowered by statute to define birthright citizenship under its Article I, section 8 power to pass a “Rule of Naturalization.”
__________________________________________
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump took aim at rival Ted Cruz in a series of Saturday morning tweets, taunting Cruz over challenges to his citizenship and reports that he did not disclose campaign loans.
Trump has tried to stoke concerns that Cruz would face legal challenges to his eligibility for president because he was born in Canada. After a Friday lawsuit questioning exactly that, Trump took a victory lap.
“Ted Cruz was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen until 15 months ago. Lawsuits have just been filed with more to follow. I told you so,” he wrote. …
__________________________________________
Well, shockingly Donald isn’t being completely honest…….
Until 15 months ago Cruz held dual citizenship. He didn’t suddenly become a US citizen 15 months ago after renouncing his Canadian citizenship. He always has been.
“Conservative Review editor Daniel Horowitz, asked about the Cruz citizenship issue cited his pretty long post of January 7 at Conservative Review, saying, “The fact that we have to have such a wordy post shows that it does merit just discussing this because simply we haven’t had a president … who wasn’t born here. People do need to be educated.”
Horowitz also said he “thinks it’s beyond a shadow of a doubt he’s a natural born citizen. But for running for president, you want to make sure.” What Horowitz said he did mind is, “those who believe that children born to illegal aliens are automatically citizens and question Cruz, like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)36%
is doing.”
Added Horowitz, “What I point out in my post is that citizenship is based upon allegiance and consent through the family long before it had anything to do with soil.”
“I don’t think there’s anyway the courts could deal with it,” he went on, “there’s nothing to glean from History here. It uses the word natural born and it is not a word of art, in other words, a known legal definition at the time.” Added Horowitz with regard to citizenship and parentage, “Since our founding it was always determined by the Father … since 1934 we define it based on the Mother, as well.”
______________________________
Here’s Horowitz’s piece from Conservative Review if you want to read the whole thing. And you should. This will help you address the concerns and partisan nonsense coming from liberals on the matter. They’re ignorant here, and I suspect willfully so, as they’re known to be.
This is an op-ed piece by a “conservative” guy at the NYT who’s saying he wouldn’t vote for Trump for various reasons having to do with lack of qualification. Isn’t that cheeky? Some Christian conservatives have been criticized by other conservatives (many of whom are Christians) for abstaining from voting on religious grounds. So religious grounds are a stupid reason not to vote for someone; but all these *other* reasons are perfectly sensible. Good job, American conservative Christians!
Wasn’t “natural born citizen” the clause which the birthers tried to use against Obama? They tried to say that if he was born in Kenya, rather than Hawaii, he wasn’t natural born, even though his mother was an American citizen.
I believe that Cruz sent out a punch to Trump with the statement that by Trump ‘ s definition that Trump would not qualify because Trump ‘ s mom was born in Scotland. That was a jaw dropper during the debate.
My top two picks are Carson and Cruz. Trump is interesting to listen to and he certainly adds an entertainment factor to the debates. Trump hit back hard on Cruz about Cruz ‘ s comment about New York, like standards are different in New York which has highly influenced Trump ‘ s worldview. Cruz is right on that, but Trump played the 9/11 card about how great New Yorker are and made Cruz look insensitive in his remark. It was quite a fascinating debate that I listened to on my Smartphone. I could have watched it, but chose to just listen.
… So, what do my Trump-supporting neighbors prioritize? It’s a reasonable approximation of the “three-legged stool” of Reagan Republicanism, but with important philosophical distinctions from true movement conservatives. First, there’s patriotism, but it’s not a patriotism that implies or mandates a particular foreign policy or national-security philosophy. …
It’s embodied in a deep love for this country and a desire to defeat its enemies, but no particular commitment either to intervention or isolationism. They’re repulsed by the Left’s mindless multiculturalism and elite’s disdain for America, but they’re foreign-policy pragmatists. Fight when it’s smart, and don’t let political correctness get in the way of national defense. …
Next, there’s cultural conservatism, but it’s not the cultural conservatism of the evangelical Right. In other words, they don’t really care what anyone else does with their lives, but they’re unwilling to join the sexual revolution either personally or politically. They’re not crusaders in either direction, but they perceive the Left as attempting to draft them into a movement they find personally distasteful. When Bill Clinton said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” he was tapping into this mindset …
Finally, there’s a commitment to economic opportunity, but it’s not embodied by intellectual devotion either to free markets or to small government. …
The GOP underestimated Trump in part because it overestimated the conservatism of its own southern, rural northern, and Midwestern base. It underestimated the extent to which many of its voters hadn’t so much embraced the corporate conservatism of the Chamber of Commerce or the constitutional conservatism of the Tea Party as much as they had rejected the extremism of the increasingly shrill and politically correct Left. …
Fascinating interview with Trump by Jake Trapper on CNN this morning in which he extolled his wonderful relationship with God and how good a life he (Trump) leads. He would rather be ‘good’ (like he is), he said, than to have to ask for forgiveness.
But I would also say that if one does feel personally bound in that way, they should not vote for nonbelievers (based on whatever information about these candidates we may have without personally knowing them).
It is every voters’ duty to vote according to his or her conscience.
It isn’t just that Trump is not a Christian. Though he claims to be. He was raised a Presbyterian.
He doesn’t understand what it’s about.
Next Sunday I teach Matthew 7:13f “”Enter in at the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many go that way. Because narrow is the gate and hard is the way that leads to life. And few are they that find it.”
End of comment.
You can fill in the rest.
(I will do it for the class, but I won’t mention Trump.)
One wonders if he’s even heard the gospel — he seemingly hasn’t been drawn to seek it out. He thinks he knows what it means to be reconciled to God (being a good person), but of course that’s nowhere near the mark — in fact, it’s a painfully obvious missed-it-by-a-mile misunderstanding of Christianity.
I’d rather he not make any pretense of being a Christian rather than trying to insist (holding his childhood Bible up at rallies but, when asked, is unable site any particular verses he likes) that he is a believer. I suspect he may not have a Bible he’s actually used as an adult, which is why the childhood copy is always brought out for display.
In today’s interview, his discomfort showed (the tone of his voice actually changed, he sounded uncharacteristically uncomfortable) every time he said the word God. Interesting.
Nothing to it Mumsee. It’s a rumor Hillary is spreading because she thinks he will be a drag on her run.
Hillary’s biggest problem is the last 25 years.
I have been profoundly disturbed by reports of Trump’s popularity in the South. If Southern states vote to nominate Trump, it will mean that our distinctive culture is dead and we deserve to share the fate of our conquerors.
I was just thinking yesterday the fam might stay in DC one more year so the older girl could graduate from high school. Tough to move your senior year; even the Navy will let you extend a year if you’ve got a senior.
But that doesn’t include elected officials, of course . . . right? Right? 🙂
Wandering Views 
Karen,
In answer to your question about Cruz last night….
Much liberal/Trump ado about nothin’…….
From a professor of constitutional law at Yale.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/13/opinions/amar-cruz-trump-natural-born-citizen/index.html
“Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution’s structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute or any other issue of presidential eligibility. Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.
Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever. They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge. In legal jargon, the issue is a “nonjusticiable political question.”
“OK, so voters and Congress decide, but what is the right answer to the Cruz question and how can ordinary citizens deduce this right answer?
Simple: We can read the Constitution, which was written for ordinary citizens. And then we can fold in a few simple points about constitutional history, tradition and common sense.”
“How else can a person be a citizen at birth? Simple. From the founding to the present, Congress has enacted laws specifying that certain categories of foreign-born persons are citizens at birth. The earliest statute, passed in 1790, explicitly called certain foreign-born children of U.S. citizens “natural born citizens.” It did not say they should be treated “as if” they were “natural born citizens.” It said they were in law deemed and declared to be “natural born citizens.” Congressional laws have changed over the years, but this 1790 law makes clear that from the beginning, Congress by law has the power to define the outer boundaries of birth-citizenship by conferring citizenship at birth to various persons born outside the United States.
And here is the key point: The statute on the books on the day Cruz was born made him a citizen on that day.”
“He was born a citizen. He is a citizen because of the way he was born. And all this is clear if we look at the relevant citizenship law that was on the books on the day of his birth. Read it for yourself: Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 235-36; Title III, ch. 1, section 301(a)(7). (Note that Cruz’s mother apparently met the requirement of the law to have lived in the United States at least five years after age 14; she was in her 30s when Cruz was born.)
But what about that word I asked you to put aside for a moment — the word, “natural”? Does that word change the analysis?
No. That word confirms the analysis. First, the word itself derives from Latin and French roots that are about birth. The word is arguably redundant (in the way that much of language is). In effect, the Constitution says that a president must be a “birth-born citizen.” But the word “natural” does add a key clarification: Congress is empowered by statute to define birthright citizenship under its Article I, section 8 power to pass a “Rule of Naturalization.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
And a Republican Congress will vote which way??
LikeLike
Trump’s playing hardball
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/266140-trump-taunts-cruz-over-citizenship-lawsuit-i-told-you-so
__________________________________________
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump took aim at rival Ted Cruz in a series of Saturday morning tweets, taunting Cruz over challenges to his citizenship and reports that he did not disclose campaign loans.
Trump has tried to stoke concerns that Cruz would face legal challenges to his eligibility for president because he was born in Canada. After a Friday lawsuit questioning exactly that, Trump took a victory lap.
“Ted Cruz was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen until 15 months ago. Lawsuits have just been filed with more to follow. I told you so,” he wrote. …
__________________________________________
LikeLike
Well, shockingly Donald isn’t being completely honest…….
Until 15 months ago Cruz held dual citizenship. He didn’t suddenly become a US citizen 15 months ago after renouncing his Canadian citizenship. He always has been.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/12/cruz-natural-born-citizen-but-questions-legitimate/
“Conservative Review editor Daniel Horowitz, asked about the Cruz citizenship issue cited his pretty long post of January 7 at Conservative Review, saying, “The fact that we have to have such a wordy post shows that it does merit just discussing this because simply we haven’t had a president … who wasn’t born here. People do need to be educated.”
Horowitz also said he “thinks it’s beyond a shadow of a doubt he’s a natural born citizen. But for running for president, you want to make sure.” What Horowitz said he did mind is, “those who believe that children born to illegal aliens are automatically citizens and question Cruz, like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)36%
is doing.”
Added Horowitz, “What I point out in my post is that citizenship is based upon allegiance and consent through the family long before it had anything to do with soil.”
“I don’t think there’s anyway the courts could deal with it,” he went on, “there’s nothing to glean from History here. It uses the word natural born and it is not a word of art, in other words, a known legal definition at the time.” Added Horowitz with regard to citizenship and parentage, “Since our founding it was always determined by the Father … since 1934 we define it based on the Mother, as well.”
______________________________
Here’s Horowitz’s piece from Conservative Review if you want to read the whole thing. And you should. This will help you address the concerns and partisan nonsense coming from liberals on the matter. They’re ignorant here, and I suspect willfully so, as they’re known to be.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/liberals-have-american-citizenship-backwards
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the explanation, AJ.
LikeLike
This is an op-ed piece by a “conservative” guy at the NYT who’s saying he wouldn’t vote for Trump for various reasons having to do with lack of qualification. Isn’t that cheeky? Some Christian conservatives have been criticized by other conservatives (many of whom are Christians) for abstaining from voting on religious grounds. So religious grounds are a stupid reason not to vote for someone; but all these *other* reasons are perfectly sensible. Good job, American conservative Christians!
LikeLike
Oops; here’s the link to the NYT piece I mentioned:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wasn’t “natural born citizen” the clause which the birthers tried to use against Obama? They tried to say that if he was born in Kenya, rather than Hawaii, he wasn’t natural born, even though his mother was an American citizen.
LikeLike
Which I think is why this has become an issue now with Cruz.
LikeLike
Donna,
Bingo. It’s payback.
LikeLike
I believe that Cruz sent out a punch to Trump with the statement that by Trump ‘ s definition that Trump would not qualify because Trump ‘ s mom was born in Scotland. That was a jaw dropper during the debate.
My top two picks are Carson and Cruz. Trump is interesting to listen to and he certainly adds an entertainment factor to the debates. Trump hit back hard on Cruz about Cruz ‘ s comment about New York, like standards are different in New York which has highly influenced Trump ‘ s worldview. Cruz is right on that, but Trump played the 9/11 card about how great New Yorker are and made Cruz look insensitive in his remark. It was quite a fascinating debate that I listened to on my Smartphone. I could have watched it, but chose to just listen.
LikeLike
An interesting and (I think) accurate analysis of Trump’s appeal (to independents, non-ideological Republicans and blue-collar Democrats):
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429853/donald-trump-voters-conservatism
__________________________________________
… So, what do my Trump-supporting neighbors prioritize? It’s a reasonable approximation of the “three-legged stool” of Reagan Republicanism, but with important philosophical distinctions from true movement conservatives. First, there’s patriotism, but it’s not a patriotism that implies or mandates a particular foreign policy or national-security philosophy. …
It’s embodied in a deep love for this country and a desire to defeat its enemies, but no particular commitment either to intervention or isolationism. They’re repulsed by the Left’s mindless multiculturalism and elite’s disdain for America, but they’re foreign-policy pragmatists. Fight when it’s smart, and don’t let political correctness get in the way of national defense. …
Next, there’s cultural conservatism, but it’s not the cultural conservatism of the evangelical Right. In other words, they don’t really care what anyone else does with their lives, but they’re unwilling to join the sexual revolution either personally or politically. They’re not crusaders in either direction, but they perceive the Left as attempting to draft them into a movement they find personally distasteful. When Bill Clinton said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” he was tapping into this mindset …
Finally, there’s a commitment to economic opportunity, but it’s not embodied by intellectual devotion either to free markets or to small government. …
The GOP underestimated Trump in part because it overestimated the conservatism of its own southern, rural northern, and Midwestern base. It underestimated the extent to which many of its voters hadn’t so much embraced the corporate conservatism of the Chamber of Commerce or the constitutional conservatism of the Tea Party as much as they had rejected the extremism of the increasingly shrill and politically correct Left. …
___________________________________________
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was happy to see Cruz attack our real enemies (Yankees) in the last debate. I still don’t understand why he wants to be their president.
LikeLike
Hey!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fascinating interview with Trump by Jake Trapper on CNN this morning in which he extolled his wonderful relationship with God and how good a life he (Trump) leads. He would rather be ‘good’ (like he is), he said, than to have to ask for forgiveness.
He clearly doesn’t grasp the gospel!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course that’s a lot of uninformed people’s view of Christianity — or, more generally, of how we find acceptance with God.
Trump kept stressing how good a person he was; so he and God are really pretty tight.
Shudder.
Really brings up that image of the two men who went into the temple to pray …
LikeLike
I would prefer to have a believer as our president, of course (and I don’t consider Trump a believer based on the evidence so far).
But I don’t think Christians are bound to vote only for Christians.
LikeLike
But I would also say that if one does feel personally bound in that way, they should not vote for nonbelievers (based on whatever information about these candidates we may have without personally knowing them).
It is every voters’ duty to vote according to his or her conscience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It isn’t just that Trump is not a Christian. Though he claims to be. He was raised a Presbyterian.
He doesn’t understand what it’s about.
Next Sunday I teach Matthew 7:13f “”Enter in at the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many go that way. Because narrow is the gate and hard is the way that leads to life. And few are they that find it.”
End of comment.
You can fill in the rest.
(I will do it for the class, but I won’t mention Trump.)
LikeLike
One wonders if he’s even heard the gospel — he seemingly hasn’t been drawn to seek it out. He thinks he knows what it means to be reconciled to God (being a good person), but of course that’s nowhere near the mark — in fact, it’s a painfully obvious missed-it-by-a-mile misunderstanding of Christianity.
I’d rather he not make any pretense of being a Christian rather than trying to insist (holding his childhood Bible up at rallies but, when asked, is unable site any particular verses he likes) that he is a believer. I suspect he may not have a Bible he’s actually used as an adult, which is why the childhood copy is always brought out for display.
In today’s interview, his discomfort showed (the tone of his voice actually changed, he sounded uncharacteristically uncomfortable) every time he said the word God. Interesting.
LikeLike
Did I miss it? Is there anything in the story that the President bought a house in Dubai for retirement so he could avoid extradition?
LikeLike
Nothing to it Mumsee. It’s a rumor Hillary is spreading because she thinks he will be a drag on her run.
Hillary’s biggest problem is the last 25 years.
LikeLike
Ok, thanks.
LikeLike
This article is somewhat encouraging.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/donald-trump-booed-ted-cruz-2016-217889
I have been profoundly disturbed by reports of Trump’s popularity in the South. If Southern states vote to nominate Trump, it will mean that our distinctive culture is dead and we deserve to share the fate of our conquerors.
LikeLike
I’ve heard the president was shopping for “retirement” home in California.
LikeLike
I was just thinking yesterday the fam might stay in DC one more year so the older girl could graduate from high school. Tough to move your senior year; even the Navy will let you extend a year if you’ve got a senior.
But that doesn’t include elected officials, of course . . . right? Right? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person