Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 84 Comments

  2. Ted Belman Said:

    regardless you were not born on sovereign US soil.”

    my understanding is that Panama was considered at the time to be “US soil” under US sovereignty and that was what qualified McCain as a “natural born citizen” rather than a derivative citizenship, as he had 2 citizen parents and was born on “US soil”. I notice that the writer of your link article refers to:

    a “natural born” citizen is any person born in the US mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) AND born of US citizen parents (that’s two) —

    I believe that “mainland” is his own invention and it is more likely to be under US jurisdiction or soveriegnty in which the US Canal Zone would apply… I would assume similar to birth in a US embassy abroad.

  3. if the only lingering query is whether Cruz could work with an R-controlled Congress, the intuitive answer is “yes” because they would have “cover” with their behind-the-scenes supporters; they could simply blame their loss of ability to deliver perks upon Cruz.

  4. The key is blue collar voters, especially auto/steel/coal workers in Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania/West Virginia. Reagan won them big. Romney failed to get them to the polls.

    Either Trump or Cruz will decisively win these voters who want bottom up economics and embrace God and Country. The only question is whether an outsider can successfully run the establishment GOP gauntlet that has protected the corrupt status quo since 1988.

  5. addendum: Cruz can mobilize indies and Reagan-Dems via the populism associated with consistent opposition to the “D.C. Cartel”; anticipate this refrain on Thursday-p.m. … in contrast to the pattern of buying political support manifest by unctuous Trump.

  6. @ Ted Belman:
    Ted, with all due respect to you and RSklaroff, I do not think Cruz is electable to the US presidency, in direct contrast to Trump, who is increasingly electable, running against Clinton or anyone else. Reasons:

    1) Cruz is too attached to the hardcore rightist Tea Party movement. As an NRA-ILA activist in Wisconsin, I make common cause with these people in state politics. But they tend to be too radical to win a national election. Trump, in comparison, seems to draw a major share of his support from working-class Democrats, and from a large population of persons who have rarely or never voted. One of the useful features of demagoguery in politics is that it actually is effective as an election tool.

    2) Cruz, with his attachments to Evangelical Christianity, may well win the Iowa caucuses, where such attachments have great political influence, but not elsewhere. In contrast, Trump’s religious involvement, which does seem to represent an overly-strong influence in his life, is in a presumably-weak connection to one of the mainstream Presbyterian church groups. Trump is an American nationalist, which I fully understand because I am a Jewish nationalist with limited connection to day-by-day Jewish religious observance. Religious lip-service is the way of most Americans, regardless of our politics.

    3) The constitutional right of any American whose place of birth was a foreign country, to be sworn in to the presidency of the United States, has not — to my knowledge — been tested in the US court system. John McCain, who in any case lost his presidential election to Obama in 2008, was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which, at that time, was under the sovereignty of the USA. This is an issue that almost certainly will be tested in the highest levels of the US judiciary system if Cruz is in fact nominated. That is one good reason that he should not be the Republican nominee.

    4) Unlike RSklaroff, I have no animosity regarding the increasing use of ethanol as a vehicle fuel. Indeed, as a devoted owner of a Volkswagen 2006 Jetta TDI with a manual transmission, I look forward to the day when biodiesel is available on a universal basis. Do I want American farmers to prosper growing fuel crops? You can safely bet that I do.

    All things considered, I am certain that Trump will indeed trump the political card game this year.

    Arnold Harris, Outspeaker

  8. http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/TheDeal.htmThe writer says that treason is involved and pleads with McCain to “Explain to them why your name and that of Barrack Hussein Obama BOTH appear on Senate resolution 511 declaring you John Sydney McCain III a “Natural Born Citizen” by virtue that BOTH of your parents were US Citizens regardless you were not born on sovereign US soil.”

    As I suggested, both parties colluded to sweep this under the rug.

  10. When Obama’s eligibility was in question, so was McCain’s. I posted an article at that time that alleged a deal was cut in the Senate where investigations were going on to not question the eligibility of either candidate.

    I’ll try to find the article.

  12. in looking at this issue, I came across the following which I found interesting from the point of view of what to do with the hostile occupants of Judea Samaria if annexed. as I do not beleive in giving citizenship to a hostile enemy population simply by fact that they are in current occupancy I found this in the supreme court deliberations wrt english common law and international law in general, it appears to be one of 2 exceptions to the rule of being a citizen by birth or residency

    It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

    I guess they didnt want hostile enemy citizens either and they were the previous power whose laws obtained in the Mandate. the pals were citizens of the hostile enemy Jordan. So there is a legal precedent for not giving citizenship to hostile enemy aliens residing or born in the nation.

  13. rsklaroff Said:

    I put-up with specificity, you didn’t; this ping-pong long-ago became tiresome.

    you put up an irrelevant policy manual which never mentions “natural born citizen” whereas the constitution clearly uses that phrase only for those who will hold the office of the president and not lesser offices.

  15. Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795[edit]
    The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”[24] This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as “natural born,” stating that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States” while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act.[24]
    Current State Department regulation concerning this reads: “This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”[25]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

    my point is that there is disagreement and it remains unresolved constitutionally and can therefore keep popping up…. whenever someone is not born in the US.

    it is only apparently of importance in regard to someone who will assume the office of the president which is clearly stated as a requirement different from other political officeholders… therefore it does not come up in your policy manual.

  16. You’re knowingly over-the-edge; we KNOW the SCOTUS hasn’t adjudicated this issue [perhaps because it’s so intuitive]!

  17. @ rsklaroff:

    4 SUPREME COURT CASES DEFINE4 ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'(Updated May 25, 2012)

    CONCLUSION
    Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
    http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

  19. @ rsklaroff:
    you are the one who has never “put up”. You quote a policy manual which does not at all deal with the legal issue of “natural born citizen”. can you show me where “natural born citizen” appears in your policy manual. Like I said, you beleive that your common sense interpretation is the same as actual law. You obviously rely on others opinions for your determination of what the legal meaning is of “natural born citizen”. Unless you are willing to read some of the past precedents where it was adjudicated you cannot know anything on the subject. citing todays policy manual is totally irrelevant to the issue.

  20. You failed to honor a focused-request, derivative of your prior posting:

    CITE THE CASES THAT THE SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATED RELATED TO THIS ISSUE!!!!!

    If you cannot find one that contravenes my assertions regarding Cruz, then cease-and-desist.

  22. You are becoming increasingly tangential, rather than putting-up, and this suggests you should therefore shut-up; these critics have obvious motives to perpetuate this kerfuffle.

  23. “I don’t know the answer to that,” McCain answered on KFY 1550’s Chris Merrill Show about Cruz’s ability to be president. “I know it came up in my race because I was born in Panama, but I was born in the Canal Zone which is a territory. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory when he ran in 1964.”

    “Yeah, it was a U.S. military base,” McCain added about himself. “That’s different from being born on foreign soil so I think there is a question. I am not a Constitutional scholar on that, but I think it’s worth looking into. I don’t think it’s illegitimate to look into it.”

    ……

    “Republican Party. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)93%
    added on Wednesday that he was not sure if Cruz was eligible to be president of the United States, either.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/07/john-mccain-dont-know-ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen/

    Trump, McCain, Paul… not sure either?????

  25. do you believe that if resolving the legal issue was as simple as going to today’s policy manual, that it would ever have been controversy in the first place?

    yes

    If Cruz runs it will be made into a big issue

    I’m happy to see it play-out during this prodrome; Americans don’t care.

    “rather than talking about a mystery citation that blows-apart Cruz [allegedly] produce or rescind.”

    RSVP

  26. rsklaroff Said:

    “The statute appears definitive, noting its title”; also, rather than talking about a mystery citation that blows-apart Cruz [allegedly] produce or rescind.

    irrelevant to the constitutional issue of “natural born citizen”. You will note that you will not find the term in your policy manual. I do not rely on the mystery citation, I have done plenty of reading of this legal issue the past few years.

    READ THE CASES THAT THE SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATED RELATED TO THIS ISSUE!!!!!

  27. rsklaroff Said:

    You cannot discount this black-letter summary of American policy by claiming it hasn’t been litigated [which is intuitive].

    do you believe that if resolving the legal issue was as simple as going to today’s policy manual, that it would ever have been controversy in the first place? Legal constitutional issues are much more complex than reading the latest policy manual.

    If Cruz runs it will be made into a big issue and likely end up overpowering the other issues, taking the heat off the dems. It would be the gift to the dems which keeps on giving. The GOP does not need this risk, and Trump will not take it unless forced into it in a deal, but I doubt he will pick Cruz, he will avoid the issue.

  28. As previously noted, “The statute appears definitive, noting its title”; also, rather than talking about a mystery citation that blows-apart Cruz [allegedly] produce or rescind.

  29. rsklaroff Said:

    You cannot discount this black-letter summary of American policy by claiming it hasn’t been litigated

    your black letter summary makes no mention of the definition of “natural born citizen”.. you merely assume that if you are a citizen NOT by naturalization then you are a “natural born citizen”. That may be a common sense approach but it is legally irrelevant. If it goes to the courts then the constitutional interpretation would take into account what the founding founders meant which would be based on common legal understandings of the time. If you are to discuss this seriously then you need to go beyond your simple common sense understandings and read the actual cases which would be, and have been, used as precedent.

    The issue of “natural born citizen” HAS been litigated in specific instances and when you read them you will see that Cruz has a problem.

  30. Without wandering into the weeds, suffice to note that the only reason “originalists” are cited is when references are made to the desire to explore British precedent; also, even if citizenship was “derivative,” it was “derived” from its status as being “natural born” [with the use of the term “native” constituting a “distinction lacking a true difference”].

  31. rsklaroff Said:

    The statute appears definitive, noting its title;

    appearances are deceptive… one cannot assume that natural born is simply defined as a citizen not by naturalization… which is what you imply. the handbook deals with current policy on determining citizenship of the US. It says nothing in respect to a legal definition of “natural born citizen”. cliffs notes dont cut the mustard in this legal issue. If you do some serious research you will find that the legal issues are much more complex than what you cite. The case can be brought to the supreme court and it would likely be lost if you read the reasoning of past cases which are precedents likely to affect the outcome. Have you read the reasons for the decisions of past cases?

    MY view based on reading past cases and other research done by legal scholars is that the case would be lost.

    BTW if you read the article I posted the professor makes the interesting point that the only folks who take the Cruz view are those who view the constitution as a living body which changes as opposed to Cruz who is an originalist.

  32. You cannot discount this black-letter summary of American policy by claiming it hasn’t been litigated [which is intuitive].

  33. @ rsklaroff:
    your citation is a policy manual and not law. Policies and interpretations can change at will in those manuals. E.G. current policy is that you do not lose your citizenship by being a dual citizen, serving in a foreign army, swearing allegiance to a foreign nation, which is what the policy interpretation was 40 years ago…the law did not change but the now the interpretation revolves around the intention to give up citizenship. this can change next year as a policy or rule.

  34. @ rsklaroff:
    BTW a great deal has been written on the subject of natural born and it is not even considered the same as native born. Legally speaking there is much more to it than simply proving you are a citizen which is what your post refers to from the handbook. Again you confuse the legal definition of “natural born citizen” with a common sense view of what it means. If you delve into the legal aspects you will see that at the time it had legal meaning and todays hand book only deals with citizenship and not the legal definition of “natural born citizen”. It has not been determined by the supreme court or the congress. Only specific cases have been decided.

  36. @ rsklaroff:
    therefore he became a citizen through derivation as opposed to natural born

    you may acquire your citizenship through naturalization or derivation or you may be born an american citizen.

    If he runs the MSM will flood the airways on this issue and kill all criticism or attention to Hillary

  37. rsklaroff Said:

    Cliff’s Notes: Cruz is a citizen and wasn’t naturalized; thus, he’s natural-born.
      

    who is cliff?
    the conclusion does not follow from the premise… not being naturalized does not mean you are natural born… you may derive your citizenship through your parents but your citizenship is not natural born. My son derived his citizenship the same way and so did I… neither of us were born in the US nor were either of us naturalized.. my parents were naturalized before I was 14 years old thus allowing me citizenship by derivation. Where do you see that not being naturalized is the same as natural born?

  39. Trump maintains that Democrats will take Cruz to court if he wins the Republican presidential nomination.

    “I’d hate to see something like that get in his way,” Trump told the Washington Post Jan. 5. “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.”

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/natural-born-doubt-law-prof-takes-shot-at-cruz/#A2sEkLmghg0pLA1t.99

    I agree with Trump, Cruz running is a big mistake, the minute it is brought up the controversy will command all attention in the MSM…. it is a ticking bomb… foolish to pursue.

    Conservative radio hosts Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh have repeatedly criticized attacks on Cruz’s eligibility.

    “Cruz’s mother is an American citizen, was an American citizen when she gave birth to Cruz, and is, in fact, Cruz’s mother. Seems fairly simple,” Levin wrote on his Facebook page Jan. 7. “Not only that, American citizens give birth to American citizens, whether here or abroad. That’s not only common sense, it is the law. And think about it for a moment – if you follow their stupid argument, babies born of American citizens serving abroad in our military would be non-naturalized citizens ineligible to run for president. That’s stupid.”

    apparently this pair of superficial idiots who command vast audiences without deserving it have done very little reading on the subject but have no shame in opening their ignorant mouths. The constitution clearly infers that a “natural born citizen” is not the same as a “citizen” when it comes to the constitutional requirement of holding office. the 2 dummies appear to confuse a “citizen” with a “natural born citizen”. Where the problem lies is that the constitution does not clearly define “natural born citizen” even though it clearly uses the term to be different from “citizen”. This is where the supreme court comes in, on interpretations. The same type of citizenship that Cruz holds can also be held by naturalized parents who give birth to their child in a foreign land and register their child as a US citizen. A citizen is not a natural born citizen, or why would the constitution use them differently?

    In any case, smart money says this would be a stupid scenario to find the GOP in. I was surprised to see that Cruz was in this scenario, if he runs he will kill the GOP chances of winning on the basis of creating a controversy which will overshadow everything else to the detriment of the GOP. His running would be the greatest gift to the democratic party who is longing for an escape from disaster with hillary.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/natural-born-doubt-law-prof-takes-shot-at-cruz/#A2sEkLmghg0pLA1t.99

  40. It’s ENOUGH already!

    http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html#S-A

    Chapter 3 – United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

    “In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:

    •The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and

    •The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision.”

    Ted’s mother was a US Citizen and, when Ted was born, hadn’t lived in Canada long enough to have been eligible to acquire Canadian citizenship; even if she and Rafael had been listed on potential-voter address-rolls, there is no evidence she had voted.

    Q.E.D.

  41. Do Voters Think A Candidate Should Quit If Indicted?

    …..should a criminal indictment put Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination on hold? Just over half of Democrats say no.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2016/do_voters_think_a_candidate_should_quit_if_indicted

    on the other hand almost 50% say yes which would be enough to ensure her loss if she ran after indictment.

    GOP donors should be paying big money to get a Clinton indictment as a smart campaign investment.

  43. Trump up by 2 points in Iowa

    Trump in the last week has stepped up attacks on Cruz’s birthplace. Cruz was born in Canada, and Trump argues Democrats could make a case that he is not qualified to be president because he is not a natural born citizen.

    Cruz was born to an American mother, and his campaign has argued he is qualified to be president just like 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal zone.

    Legal experts have long agreed that the Constitution’s natural born citizen requirement includes those born to U.S. citizens outside the country.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265421-trump-leads-cruz-by-two-points-in-new-iowa-poll

    I disagree with this analysis of Cruz “natural born citizenship” as being inaccurate. I believe he does not qualify. First, I do not remember reading of any case whereby a person NOT BORN in the US can qualify as a “natural born citizen”.

    In the case of McCain the panama canal zone was deemed to be US territory at the time of his birth plus there are allowances in some citizenship issues for those born to military while in service abroad. Hence he was NOT deemed to be born abroad.

    In the case of Obama he always claimed to be born in Hawaii when it was a US state and the cases brought against him were based on him lying about his birth that he was not born in the US. the argument revolved primarily around the unusual Hawaiian short form BC which allowed US citizen parents to list Hawaii as the place of birth of their child even if born abroad. Only the long form showed the actual hospital in Hawaii and experts said the digital copy released of the long form was and adobe forgery in layers.

    Therefore, in neither case does an analogy apply as it is clear that Cruz was born abroad and received his US citizenship under the classification of “derivative citizenship”. This is not a natural born citizenship and if he runs I beleive that no one can claim it as analoguous to the Obama or McCain case.

    If Trump wins and is smart he will NOT choose Cruz as his running mate as the controversy will be too risky and could ruin his campaign. Trump is smart and sees the problem before it comes, unlike the GOP …… I wonder who could have certified that Cruz qualifies under the constitution.. I think it is a major mistake that could cost the election… it will become a major issue which clouds all other issues such as the corruption of hillary. I bet that if Tru,mp wins he is smart enough to avoid the problem and NOT choose Cruz. I arrive at these conclusions based on facts not on political positions.

  45. rsklaroff Said:

    delegates, some of whom are bound by state-law and some of whom aren’t; they are elected/chosen to represent states/D.C./territories

    who elects or chooses them….
    I ask because I am wondering how the GOP establishment will prevent trump from a candidacy where he is far ahead.

  47. does anyone know if the GOP candidate is chosen by a vote of voters or by a vote of appointed (establishment) delegates?

  48. This is from Sklaroff.
    @ ArnoldHarris:

    He’s too erratic; for example, he dissed Pamela Geller.

    We cannot trade one autocrat for another, even if his professed views [this week] appear desirable.

    Remember how he views eminent-domain; he sued a lady-homeowner to get the government to force her to sell her home to him…so that he could have a limo parking-lot adjoining his A.C. casino.

    Cruz is constitution-based, as illustrated by his reluctance to follow the Santorum/Huckster view of how marriage should be “protected” by their version of a dictatorial POTUS.

    Cruz risks his evangelical-base and the ethanol-crowd when upholding principles of limited government, individual responsibility, etc.

    He is against dealmaking, etc.; for example, Trump panders to the ethanol-crowd shamelessly, and he would be expected to be equally expedient [and unprincipled] throughout a putative presidency.

    Cruz is squeaky-clean honest, intelligent, wise, forthright, etc.

    It’s a no-brainer.

  49. Getting the solid, strong, and focused national leadership of Trump into the US presidency has less to do with hope than with the determination of pro-Trump local and state-level activists all across the USA, well in time before either their state primary elections or the countrywide election in early November 2016.

    I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’m a Wisconsin activist for the National Rifle Association’s Institute of Legislative Affairs. Since 1994, I have personally testified on behalf of Wisconsin gun-owner rights in hearings before the two houses of the Wisconsin State Legislature in the near-by Wisconsin State Capitol. This year, I will be involved in similar efforts on behalf of our conservative US Senator Johnson and on behalf of Trump and whomever he will select as his vice-presidential running mate.

    I furthermore think he could well select Cruz as his running mate, unless some sort of legal bar is established by the US court system against Americans who were born outside US territory serving either as president or vice president.

    Can Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the general election? I think so, because more than one well-known poll has shown him attracting extraordinarily large numbers of Americans who have rarely or rarely been attracted to the election process. Even better, he is attracting similarly large numbers of people who have mostly voted for Democratic Party candidates in the past. And although Trump knows that numbers of establishment Republicans who are fearful of ditching political correctness and will not vote for him, these numbers are considerably smaller than Trump’s attractiveness to working-class Democrats, independents, and persons who have rarely or never voted.

    As for Cruz as a presidential candidate. He may well win the Iowa caucus. That is largely because he will do well with the Evangelical Christian vote, which is more influential in Iowa’s particular system of countywide caucuses, than than in nearly any other US state. But an Iowa victory typically begets little or nothing in the various state primary elections, and, in any case, Trump is highly likely to win big in the first state primary election in New Hampshire a week after the Iowa caucuses, and in a string of other early-primary states.

    Arnold Harris, Outspeaker