Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    Claims that Ted Cruz is not eligible are “pure speculation”

    Claims that Ted Cruz is not eligible are “pure speculation”

    My interview on Iowa radio about the “natural born Citizen” controversy.

    I was a guest on Caffeinated Thoughts Radio on 93.3 FM in Iowa on Saturday, January 16, 2016. (Full audio at bottom of post.)

    The topic was Ted Cruz and the “natural born Citizen” controversy.

    For my prior analysis, which is referred to in the radio discussion, see my September 3, 2013 post, natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz. In the past 2.5 years, many people have sent me complaints and supposed analyses of things I missed; I track those down and not a one has persuaded me one iota that my analysis was wrong.

    As I said in that post:

    I also am not trying to “win” the argument. I have no intention (hah!) of getting into the endless argument streams this topic engenders, where for every answer there is a new obscure historical reference or convoluted theory until someone gives up. There are some things you just can’t “win” on the internet, and this is one of them.

    Yet it sickens me the way Donald Trump and Ann Coulter have demagogued the issue. They may be successful in creating doubts in voters’ minds; that’s the nature of propaganda, it sometimes works.

    Here are excerpts from my interview; the full audio is at the bottom of the post:

    “… the words are important, because what’s not in the Constitution is a term which has been frequently used historically of ‘native born’ citizen…. The fact that the term ‘native born’ is not a requirement I think is extremely significant because it signals that had the Framers wanted to require that only somebody born within the territory of the United States could be president, they could have very easily the term ‘native born’ citizens.”

    “… when it’s unclear what a phrase [in the Constitution] means, you do look to whether there was a common understanding based on British common law of a particular term because it’s presumed that the Framers were familiar with British common law at the time they framed the Constitution. The problem is, British law was not clear on the subject…. Britain didn’t have the term ‘natural born Citizen,’ it had the term ‘natural born Subject. And if we’re going to say that words matter, then you can’t simply say that ‘natural born Subject’ is synonymous with ‘natural born Citizen.” But even if you did, Britain had, depending on which colony they were in, depending what point in history, they used many different definitions of who would become a ‘natural born Subject’ of the King. And that included both territorial; but it also included parental lineage… So in looking at British law, both common law and statutes, it doesn’t give us a clear answer as to what this term means.”

    … So what I can say fairly definitively was that the was no clear and common understanding of British law on the subject of who would become a natural born Subject as it related to territory because British law provided in different places in the world and at different times many different standards. So we have a term in the Constitution that is not explained in the Constitution, is not explained — no matter what anybody will say and cherry pick a case here or cherry pick something there, is not explained by British law.

    But to me looking at the text, what could ‘natural born Citizen’ mean, other than you gained your citizenship through birth. I’ve never heard a logical explanation of what that term could mean other than you gain your citizenship through birth…. [there is] no identifiable, demonstrable alternative definition [from the Framers themselves]. So we’re in a situation where people are just literally taking theories about what it means.”

    “I’ve written on this. This is an argument you can’t win with people because every time this comes up they’ll pull some obscure historical reference, you just can’t win it. But just because you can’t win it, because people keep pulling stuff out, and then it takes them five minutes to put it out there [but] takes you five days of research to prove that they’re not right and by the time you’ve done completing your research they’ve come up with some new obscure historical reference …, I have gone through all of the major arguments … and they are pure speculation, there is nothing substantive they can point to.”

    “That’s why I come to the conclusion, because I am somebody who takes seriously the wording of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers seriously, and that should be what we look to, you have a text which I think suggests that someone who gains citizenship through birth is a ‘natural born Citizen’, you have nothing that anybody can point to that’s other than rank speculation that it means something else, and therefore I don’t believe that we should be excluding people from running who appear to be qualified based upon the plain terms of the Constitution based upon hypothetical, speculative theories…. I don’t believe it’s a serious question ….”

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     3 
     
     3
    Ragspierre | January 18, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    Hey, Bierhall, did you see your Progressive crony deal-maker holding that prop Bible up in front of that tiny audience and trying to pander with “Tooth Corinthians”…???

    LOVE that….!!! What a lying moron…!!!

    I saw Mr. Trump speaking to an assembly of over 10,000 students at Liberty University in Virginia after having been enthusiastically being introduced and basically endorsed by Jerry Falwell Jr. for evangelicals and all chritians. I also noted how Jerry Falwell recounted to the audience the true story of how a person stopped to help Mr. Trump and his broke down Limo and how shortly after that Mr. Trump found out who owned the mortgage on their home and paid off their mortgage as a thank you.

    I also saw today when Greta on Fox was recounting all of this how Mr. Trump helped financially to bring Sgt Tamorisi home from Mexico jail and then gave him money to help get a better start to his life after being wrongly held in Mexico for close to a year.

    I also noted how Greta noted Mr. Trump does many things like this to help people but chooses not to talk about these things that he does for others.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/18/liberty-university-president-jerry-falwell-jr-a-lot-of-parallels-between-father-and-donald-trump/

    Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr. introduced GOP frontrunner Donald Trump to thousands of people gathered to listen to him at his campaign rally at Liberty University in Virginia on Monday and said, “I see a lot of parallels between my father and Donald Trump.”

    He described Trump as “one of the greatest visionairies of our time” and praised him for several good deeds Trump has done, such as donating 100,000 dollars to a friend who leads a ministry and paying off a couple’s mortgage.

    Falwell also told the audience that Trump was the only candidate who walked down off the stage after the more-than-two-hour GOP primary debate to greet the crowd.

    “I’ve seen first hand that his staff loves him and is loyal to him,” Falwell said, adding that Trump “lives a life of loving and helping others as Jesus taught in the great commandment.”

    Falwell said his father was criticized for supporting Ronald Reagan because Reagan was from Hollywood and not a Sunday school teacher. “I see a lot of parallels between my father and Donald Trump,” he added.

    “He honors his fiduciary responsibilities…he speaks the truth publically even if it is uncomfortable for people to hear,” Falwell said of Trump, adding that he has “stunned the political world.”

    “Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air in a nation where the political establishment from both parties has betrayed their constituencies,” Falwell said, adding that Trump is the only candidate who can claim he’s “not a puppet on a string,” while the wealthy campaign donors are the puppet masters.

    Falwell said it would be “wonderful” for someone to be president who refuses contributions and has built a business from scratch.

    “It is not our elected leaders that make our country great,” Falwell said, explaining that it’s the citizens and the private sector.

    “I believe that the polls are indicating to us now that the American public is finally ready to elect a candidate who is not a career politician,” but who has succeeded in real life, Falwell concluded before introducing Trump to the crowd.

    Trump took the stage and said, “To be compared to his father just a little bit is really an honor for me, so I want to thank Jerry for saying that.”

    “I said, that’s the best compliment of all,” Trump added.


       
       3 
       
       3
      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 9:26 pm

      “He honors his fiduciary responsibilities…”

      With FOUR bankruptcies…!!!

      The younger Falwell must be a real idiot!

      Trump bought a hotel at 400 million, sold at 325 million, and declared victory
      By Ed Straker

      Donald Trump always breezes by the fact that he declared bankruptcy not once or twice or three times, but four times. No one has really looked into the circumstances of these bankruptcies until now, in a NYT article, where Trump’s “brilliant” move to buy the Plaza Hotel in New York is described. The Plaza Hotel is an extremely fancy hotel near Central Park that Trump coveted.

      The article describe how Trump, hearing that the owner of the Plaza wanted to sell it, persuaded the owner to sell to him without putting it up for auction. Trump did this by offering him the whopping sum of $400 million.

      The only problem is that the Plaza Hotel wasn’t worth 400 million dollars.

      By 1990, the Plaza needed an operating profit of $40 million a year to break even, according to financial records that Mr. Trump disclosed at the time. The hotel had fallen well short of that goal, and with renovating expenses, in one year it burned through $74 million more than it brought in.

      But Trump wanted a fancy hotel to make his portfolio look good, regardless of the cost.

      Just a few years later, the Plaza wound up in bankruptcy protection, part of a vast and humiliating restructuring of some $900 million of personal debt that Mr. Trump owed to a consortium of banks. Never one for regrets, Mr. Trump today regards the purchase as a triumph.

      “To me the Plaza was like a great painting,” he said in an interview in late December. “It wasn’t purely about the bottom line. I have many assets like that and the end result is that they are always much more valuable than what you paid for them.”

      These are the not the words of a smart businessman; these are the words of an irrational narcissist.
      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/trump_bought_a_hotel_at_400_million_sold_at_325_million_and_declared_victory.html

      BaaaaaWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA,,.!!!!


     
     1 
     
     1
    Sammy Finkelman | January 18, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    The Club for Growth has only TWO positions:

    l. free market economics, and

    2. small government

    They have NEVER taken ANY position on immigration.

    Doesn’t enforcing immigration laws to the hilt, and restricting the right to hire contradict BOTH the principles of free market economics and small government?

    Liar.


     
     1 
     
     0
    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | January 19, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    In what universe is a person born in another country, by birth given citizenship in that country, and later renouncing that citizenship in that country come anywhere near meeting the requirements as a natural born citizen of the United States? A “natural born citizen” would not have to renounce citizenship in another country. Cruz was born in Canada. His parents were there as residence legally. He was born there and given Canadian citizenship. As a child born in this country of parents who are here legally is a natural citizen, so Cruz is a natural citizen of Canada. Just as the child born here of foreigner parents, their parents citizenship has no relation to the citizenship of the child born here.


       
       1 
       
       2
      Ragspierre in reply to Zelsdorf Ragshaft III. | January 19, 2016 at 5:11 pm

      Just how many of the first several presidents were born in the United States?

      HINT: NONE! There was no United States when they were born.

      Here’s another lil’ flash for you…LOTS of kids hold duel citizenship by a fluke of law, not by any fault of theirs, or any election they made. Many aren’t aware of it.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend