Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

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 of getting into the endless argument streams this topic engenders, where for every answer there is a new obscure historical reference or convoluted theory until someone gives up.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

“In the past 2.5 years, many people have send me complaints…”

I suggest “sent”.

Well said, Prof…except maybe “fairly definitively…” Sorry about that, but I feel compelled to point out such things to people whose writing matters to me.

Hoping this manufactured controversy dies really soon.

    rotten in reply to Rab. | January 17, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Let’s assume the issue is undecided but 100% airtight that Cruz will win his claim.

    Cruz is still opening himself up to a lot of trouble by not getting the Declaratory Judgment.

    Hillary Clinton is ruthless and 75% or more of her staff thinks that the courts stole that election from Al Gore. She won’t hesitate to ambush Cruz with litigation the first time Cruz shows weakness.

    Imagine Cruz gets hit with a lawsuit that forces him off the campaign trail to make court appearances and sucks up all the media oxygen in September. That would be a disaster for every Republican running in 2016.

    Cruz is so stubborn that he’s walking into an ambush. A principled conservative ought to have some faith in the process.

    This is a character issue even more that it’s a purely legal issue.

    Estragon in reply to Rab. | January 17, 2016 at 8:44 pm

    I’ve had three Birther Trumpkins on Twitter quote the Dred Scott decision as evidence. Whatever your view on whether the issue is settled law or not (my own is that it is and that Larry Tribe said it wasn’t so he could laugh at the idiots on our side a bit longer), can we not agree the consensus worst decision in SCOTUS history is both superseded and not on point?

I agree Ted Cruz is eligible to be POTUS. However, with or without Trump and Coulter bringing the “natural born citizen” issue up, it’s out there. I think Trump is right to bring it up now before the issue becomes one the Democrats use to deflect from other issues. Someone with standing, whoever that might be, should do Cruz and other potential candidates who weren’t born on American soil to two American citizens a favor and get a court to make a ruling so this issue can be made to go away for good. I actually think that’s what Trump is asking for. I don’t think he thinks Cruz is ineligible, but should he get the nomination and want to tap Cruz as his running mate, I don’t think he wants to spend time on eligibility then. I don’t think it’s much of a leap to infer that’s his motive. I have no idea where Coulter might be coming from.

    Ragspierre in reply to elliesmom. | January 17, 2016 at 8:44 am

    No, bless your heart.

    T-rump viciously attacked Cruz from the LEFT. There was nothing pure about his motives.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/16/trump-tees-off-cruz-a-canadian-who-goldman-sachs-citi-bank-owns/

      Skookum in reply to Ragspierre. | January 19, 2016 at 1:19 am

      Only a pseudocon would claim upholding the Constitution is an attack from the Left.

        betty in reply to Skookum. | January 20, 2016 at 9:28 pm

        Why is that Ragspierre allowed to bring misery to every discussion on this blog. Some one once said that they thought Ragspierre is really Professor Jacobson – is he?

        I have already canceled my monthly subscription.

        But there is one thing I would like to add before not letting the door hit me on my way out – The truth has no agenda, so instead of concluding with weesel words that for Cruz non-eligibility is “pure speculation” you just do what any honest broker would do and say there is an issue and it needs to be resolved. And those of you who keep insisting Ted Cruz obtain a declaratory judgment for the sake of the party and country – keep up the good work.

    Should Cruz get the nomination he will want to know if Trump is a “natural born conservative” before tapping him as a running mate.

    (The Trumpoline has people going up and down and nowhere.)

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to elliesmom. | January 17, 2016 at 9:42 am

    Who would be most harmed by Cruz winning the nomination despite being ineligible to be president? Arguably Trump, do you agree?

    Yet Trump is unwilling, at least so far, to file he lawsuit. Why do you suppose that is?

    Perhaps because he knows it is a frivolous claim that stands a very high likelihood of being thrown out, which will make him look like a fool?

    I think Trump is right to bring it up now before the issue becomes one the Democrats use to deflect from other issues.

    That was the same argument made when Megyn Kelley posed some pointed questions of Trump on some of the more outrageous rhetoric he’s used in the past, especially against women. Because truly, does anyone actually believe that if Trump ends up the GOP nominee, the Left isn’t going to bring up any of the “inconvenient truths” in his past?

    And yet instead of congratulating her for “bringing it up now before the issue becomes one the Democrats use to deflect from other issues,” you all cheered when The Donald blew off her questions by dismissing her as a dumb blonde bimbo who’s on the rag, and then started a change-dot-org petition to get her fired from Fox News.

    But the fact of the matter in Cruz birtherism is that it wasn’t shaping up to be a “thing” anyway, at least not in the mainstream reality-based universe. It’s mainly been the Trump superfans who have latched onto this dumb nontroversy because they apparently can’t find anything of substance for their foul-mouthed big government northeast progressive to attack one of the few actual conservatives in this race with.

    damocles in reply to elliesmom. | January 17, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Trump did not bring up this issue out of the goodness of his heart.Trump himself said in September there was absolutely no problem with Cruzes eligibility. Trump did not care about the party or Cruz until Cruz was beating him in Iowa. It was for purely selfish reasons to try and hurt Cruz. Do not delude yourself otherwise.

DINORightMarie | January 17, 2016 at 8:36 am

As always, spot-on. In addition, virtually no one has standing to sue a candidate on this, as has also been written up on the interwebs. So, the courts aren’t going to take this up….unless someone with standing sues.

Watch the Trump trolls crawl in and make all their specious arguments in 3……2……1……

    legalbeagle in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 17, 2016 at 9:19 am

    The standing issue depends. That’s because the dynamics are political. If the Democratic Party decided it was in their political interest to bring such a lawsuit, a duly sanctioned NGO would bring a lawsuit before a friendly Democratic United States District Court judge.

    At the Supreme Court level, John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy have not been consistent towers of strength when faced with political questions adverse to the Democratic Party.

    Legally yes, Cruz is a natural born citizen. But a Court ruling, by a court that granted standing, would most likely be a political statement not a legal statement.

      Ragspierre in reply to legalbeagle. | January 17, 2016 at 9:55 am

      Wow. That’s as assumption-packed a statement as any I’ve seen anywhere, and most of those assumptions are silly.

      First, you have an “NGO” being granted standing by some Federal District court. Which would IMMEDIATELY be challenged, and successfully, too, on the merits.

      Second, you ASSume that imaginary district court GETS to rule, AND rules in favor of your ASSumed NGO.

      THEN, you just blow past the appellate courts, and I submit that even the Ninth Circus Court Of Appeals would reverse your ASSumed ruling from the trial court.

      (I also wonder about the case having to go to the DC appeals court on jurisdiction, but I’d have to research that.)

      FINALLY, you ASSume the Supremes would take this case, which I submit would be highly dubious.

        legalbeagle in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2016 at 11:59 am

        I have looked long and hard, and I cannot find any “right” to gay marriage in the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court, years after ruling that Texas’s sodomy laws passed Constitutional muster, ruled that gay marriage is a “right” that cannot be restricted by the States. The ruling was a result of a carefully orchestrated political campaign to change public sentiment. The decision itself, authored by Anthony Kennedy was a political treatise not judicial scholarship.

        As with Gay Marriage, the ground for a judicial attack on Cruz’s eligibility would be carefully prepared with a coordinated media campaign. All sorts of “Legal Experts” would be quoted. But only those experts on the desired side of the issue. Democratic Party affiliated commentators would start expressing “concerns” on talk shows. Push polls would be taken. Public concern would “grow”. Oh no, perhaps we the American Public made a mistake in electing this man.

        Next a friendly venue and a friendly Vaughn Walker type judge would be chosen. This judge would grant standing. The judge would then issue a ruling as a matter of law. The judge would be lionized in the New York Times and other media outlets for his or her “courage”. Magazine covers of the judge and puff pieces would follow.

        As so often happens in political cases, the rulings of the Circuit Courts of Appeal become irrelevant.

        If the case is part of an organized Democratic Party campaign, the Supreme Court would almost certainly grant certiorari. First there would be significant public outcry. Pressure on the justices. Secondly, certiorari grants take only four votes. At last count there are four Democratic judges – and I have not seem them defy Democrat Party imperatives.

        Will such an attack happen? I don’t know. But rest assured it can happen as readily as Pope John Paul I’s “heart attack”.

          Ragspierre in reply to legalbeagle. | January 17, 2016 at 12:18 pm

          But a complete fantasy.

          And your gay marriage comparison is completely inapposite. It took about a decade for the “ground prep”.

          PLUS, you had individuals who had standing via their claims to have experienced individual violations of their civil rights.

          A court that granted standing on this issue to an “NGO” would be immediately taken up on mandamus. They’d be immediately subject to an injunction, barring any proceedings until the standing issue was resolve. Because it HAS to be, once raised, as it determines whether the court has ANY capacity to act at all, whatsoever.

          AND standing is a JURISDICTIONAL question, and can be challenged at ANY point, including on appeal.

          There may no no possibility of “court shopping” as well. The only jurisdiction, as I suggested above MAY be the DC district.

        legalbeagle in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2016 at 6:09 pm

        I suppose you also believe that the silver minnow and Endangered Species Act are why water was cut off to a chunk of California farmers? Sorry it’s politics.

        You have taken a rather presumptions position. You divine based on your understanding of constitutional and prudential constraint; how ALL United States District Court Judges would rule on a given issue. Bottom line, a Plaintiff has standing in District Court until the District Court judge or magistrate judge grants a defendants motion challenging the Standing of the Plaintiff.

        Now Counselor, I have treated you with respect and courtesy. Your remarks, in my view, have a tendentious tenor that I find unbecoming. The snark does not strengthen your arguments.

        Do you give 100% assurances to your clients about the outcome of pending litigation?

          Ragspierre in reply to legalbeagle. | January 17, 2016 at 6:30 pm

          “Bottom line, a Plaintiff has standing in District Court until the District Court judge or magistrate judge grants a defendants motion challenging the Standing of the Plaintiff.”

          Not according to my rule book. Once a jurisdictional question is raised, THAT is the ONLY thing a court MAY consider. Because ANYTHING ELSE is a nullity if the court lacks jurisdiction. And, BTW, any party can lack standing OR capacity, and hence the court has no jurisdiction.

          As to my attitude, I can’t imagine why you’re taking umbrage. I’m giving your arguments all the respect they deserve. If you can’t stand my depicting your gay rights analogy correctly as inapposite, tough.

          And, no, of course I don’t predict for clients the outcome of ligation. But I damn sure CAN tell clients about forgetting a case where they have no standing. I don’t like wasting their money, see?

I’ve read that while Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen, both she and Cruz’s father obtained citizenship from Canada where they were residing (not just visiting) at the time of Cruz’s birth. While I am a moderately strong fan of Cruz (his verbosity and flip flop on ethanol worry me), I would like to know for sure if his mother renounced her U.S. citizenship.

    genes in reply to mrboxty. | January 17, 2016 at 10:36 am

    His mother had moved to Canada in 1969, Cruz was born in 1970. Canadian law at the time required a 5 year residency before you could become a citizen.

    Ragspierre in reply to mrboxty. | January 17, 2016 at 10:47 am

    There was no Cruz “flip-flop” on ethanol. There were some idiots (e.g., Jazz Shaw and Noah Rothman) who stepped off into a manure pile, but they were punked for their trouble.

    http://patterico.com/2016/01/07/noah-rothman-falsely-claims-accuracy-on-cruz-and-ethanol/

    damocles in reply to mrboxty. | January 17, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Cruz is the ONLY CANDIDATE AGAINST ETHANOL SUBSIDIES.There was no flip flop on ethanol. Cruz bill in senate in 2014 says 5 year drawn down of subsidies by percentage, subsidy ends 2019.This is because it takes at least a four year crop rotation and Iowans need to get financially prepared to losing subsidy. Like kicking cigarettes. Bill has not cleared senate yet (thanks Mc Connell.) This year is 2016 add 5 years as original bill says you get 2012. Obama vetos. Bill taken up in new Congress with Cruz as President.Cruz gets elected bill signed in 2022. No flipflop.
    Cruzes mother never got Canadian citizenship, she never had residence long enough there to be a Canadian citizen before Cruz was born. She was working in New Orleans in 1966, Cruz was born in 1970. Impossible.

      gibbie in reply to damocles. | January 17, 2016 at 7:16 pm

      I just noticed a gas pump at my FL Wawa which has a separate hose for “no additive” gas. It was about $2.29 vs about $1.85 for regular with ethanol. What’s this country coming to?

        Ragspierre in reply to gibbie. | January 17, 2016 at 7:27 pm

        T-rump…true to his Mr. Establishment nature…has sold out to the ethanol lobby in Iowa, supporting continued anti-market Federal subsidies and mandatory gasoline adulteration.

        Just like Solyndra. But corny.

    Sanddog in reply to mrboxty. | January 17, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    His father became a Canadian citizen in 1973. His mother remained an American citizen. They were living in Canada because they had started a business that sold seismic data processing services to the Canadian oil and gas industry.

Yet it sickens me the way Donald Trump and Ann Coulter have demagogued the issue.

Yep. Who needs Democrats when we have so-called “conservatives” so enthusiastically applying the Left’s dishonest tactics to our own?

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

Also, this.

They’ve got a 10-gallon bucket full of weird, obscure and unsourced claims, all workshopped and promulgated by some of the more fringe bloggers out there, and they keep throwing these claims out there under the guise of “hey, we’re just asking questions!”, and by the time whatever the current “factoid” du jour is has been comprehensively disproved, they’ve already launched another one. Rinse and repeat.

“A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Lefties have always depended on this truism. Now the so-called “right” has discovered it as well, but sadly they’re only using it against their own.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Amy in FL. | January 17, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    May I suggest two things:

    1) They get most of this fringe nonsense in their “bucket” from the Obama birther movement……all these and more were tossed around for at least 2 years (2008-2009) and the left has mined those “sources” well to gather birther oppo ammo.

    2) Many of these Trump trolls who are such adamant birthers are NOT true Trump groupies – they are Dem leftist-progressive trolls who are stirring the pot, distracting, and otherwise throwing people off the mark….or so they hope….to take Cruz and his supporters off-message.

    Want to see this Trump-trolling in action? Go to Breitbart. Their comment threads on nearly every post about either Trump or Cruz are full of the birther nonsense, about the “Wall Street owns Cruz” BS, and more. It is all too much like those Obama-ites who did the same thing to anything and everything Republican when Obama ran – both in 2008 AND in 2012. (Note: it happens here, too; just not as blatantly obvious……)

    They are showing their hand, exposing themselves, as paid trolls, IMHO.

Professor Jacobson:

How about this? More correct is natural born citizen is a citizen who obtains their citizenship at birth without reference to any statute that confers the citizenship. But recognizing Congress believed that if it enacted a statute that by its terms specifically and expressly stated natural born citizenship was granted as an exception to this general rule.

So born on USA soil
Born to citizen on USA territory

The founders obviously planned ahead for growth of country and the phrase native born citizen could have been problematic for spread of USA across the continent west of the eastern seaboard through the use of territories that would ultimately become states.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Gari “Dead Horse” Britt strikes again… And again. And another time.

    Poor old dead horse… Gari can’t leave it to rot in peace, all for the love of his “man”.

      Rags if I wanted to beat a dead horse I would punch you in the brain.

      Or…I wasn’t speaking to you.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 1:11 pm

        If you want to carry on a private conversation with the Prof., look up his email.

        It’s posted here, on the blog.

        Otherwise, anything you post on a thread like this one is fair game.

        And you’re a sitting duck.

    How about this?

    See, once the first 25 ambit claims get thoroughly looked into and debunked, they just toss out another one. “Just askin’ questions!” They can do this all day. It costs them nothing, and takes maybe 30 seconds of their time. But they’ll tie a thoughtful person up for hours if not days debunking it, in which time they’ll have gone back to their fetid little fever-swamps of Trumpism and come back with a new one.

    And the Democrats and their Leftstream Media enablers smile.

      DINORightMarie in reply to Amy in FL. | January 17, 2016 at 12:56 pm

      I believe they are paid trolls – in this case, Trump-trolls, coming here to stir the pot and take people off message……. #justsayin 😉

        No, a lot of them are actually regulars at other blogs which have gone Full Trumpkin.

        Ragspierre in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 17, 2016 at 1:27 pm

        It seems a trait of cults of personality that you have acolytes like Bierhall Britt who are slavish followers to the point of just outright lying essentially every day.

        Why do I call him “Bierhall”?

        “What conservatives know [which is wonderfully ironic, as Britt is NOT a conservative] is that the country’s situation has grown so dire in so many areas that only a personality with steel, vigor, determination and even ruthlessness can possibly make things right. Getting every detail correct — but not having the stamina or forcefulness to carry out the plan — won’t cut it.”

        Sound just like a good lil’ Brown Shirt, doesn’t he?

    Mr. Britt, see my response below to the professor, but I suspect you are closer to being correct than professor is on this one. The simple fact is, from a statutory construction perspective, that the founders clearly intended something by using this formulation and it is a formulation that suggest they are imposing a limitation on the grant of citizenship. Our task is to determine what the boundaries of that limitation are. The professor offers no suggestions in that regard, claiming only that defining such boundaries would be speculation. Or, stated another way, that the language is so speculative it can’t be viewed as an actual limiter of any kind. That’s not good enough. Statutory language is presumed to have an intended effect by the drafters. The argument that it is a no limits limiter is not persuasive to me.

Professor, I readily would have agreed with you until I read the following article, available at: http://scholarship.law.edu/scholar/126/

Natural Born in the U.S.A.: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It. Apparently there’s enough “there” to make a controversy.

    Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 17, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Well, just enough “there” to make a law review article. Which is pretty much the most infinitesimal smidgen of “there” possible. The pressure to publish in legal academic circles results in some amazingly stupid crap being written.

    “Dwelling in the thick of thin things”, as a wise mentor of mine would say.

      janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2016 at 2:52 pm

      There’s enough there to make a headache, with multiple points and cases that would have to be explained away.

      The problem with “natural born” as I see it, staying at the originalist interpretation of what the founders intended, and not even delved into in the article, is that in 1787 married woman couldn’t even retain their own U.S. citizenship if they were married to a foreigner.

      Since McCain, Romney, and Goldwater never got to the point of winning the presidency, they are not good examples.

      I agree with Levin that it makes no sense. I disagree with him that the (relatively quickly replaced and superseded) 1790 naturalization act would be determinative. Because among other things, in 1790, Cruz’s mother could not have been a U.S. citizen.

      I find it unspeakably obnoxious and disgusting that a jihadist could spend a month in the United States and give birth to a “natural-born citizen” and that there could be any question about a child born to a soldier and his wife on a foreign military base.

      After researching this, I was so flipped out by this counter-intuitive crap, that I have told my children in the military to make sure that their children are born on American soil.

      We need a constitutional amendment to eliminate “birthright citizenship” of every child whose parents are not permanent residents of the United States, and to fix and clarify the definition of “natural-born citizen”.

        Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 17, 2016 at 3:20 pm

        I support the idea in you last paragraph, while not agreeing that we “need” it. Nice notion to include in an Art. 5 mandate, but not a hill I’d die on since there are other routes to kibosh “anchor babies”.

          janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2016 at 3:54 pm

          I’m conflicted. On the one hand, I think that the courts could fashion an argument that would define “natural born” such that it is not an issue in cases such as that of Cruz, our military, and so forth.

          On the other hand, I am fearful that the courts would both go too far on the activist side in including birthright jihadists, and too narrowly in resolving all of the potential problems such as with the military. Don’t trust it after the same-sex marriage decision.

    damocles in reply to janitor. | January 17, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    So, would you like to tell all the young men and women that we are sending overseas to defend our nation and your right to speak freely,that their children born overseas in foreign hospitals will never be able to become President? Do you think the Founders wanted to stop the children of our most loyal, brave and patriotic citizens from being President? Just try and make an excuse for that one? I do not believe for one moment that George Washington would agree with you.

      That is precisely why the founders used natural born citizen instead of native born citizen. They did not want to exclude people like children of military born on a USA military base.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 1:15 pm

        Oh. So just the ones born off base by some fluke, or the children born on a vessel at sea, or while the parents were working overseas.

        You are totally intellectually and MORALLY bankrupt.

        But you know that, and work at it.

          Yep those would be excluded. Military was all male and you couldn’t have the kids of local prostitutes having kids off base become natural born citizens. Also the children born off base to deserters and drunken sailors gone awol wouldn’t be natural born citizens either.

          You seem to prefer a different rule. A much more morally bankrupt rule and far more dangerous one at the time of our founding.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2016 at 1:29 pm

          I just leave that one hanging in the air, stinking up the place.

          You make my role so easy…

          So they are apparently morally unfit if born outside the country. Why then are such children, if born to domestic prostitutes or drunkards, considered eligible to become President – just because they were born in the United States?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2016 at 8:43 pm

          I’m going to shrewdly speculate you never served in uniform, Gaghdad Bob…

          Not morally unfit FMC geographically unfit and loyalty suspect class because thereof.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 18, 2016 at 11:35 am

          So…

          On-base birth, “geographically fit”.

          Off-base birth (and MILLIONS of U.S. service members have been housed off-base), “geographically unfit (disloyal)”.

          Foreign flaged vessel at sea or plane in flight, “geographically unfit”.

          Only in the mind of a truly depraved individual can that be supported.

          And Gari Britt is just your individual.

      Curle in reply to damocles. | January 17, 2016 at 2:12 pm

      I’d be interested to see evidence that the very thought of overseas bases or even a permanent standing military ever occurred to the founders except as something to be avoided.

        Ragspierre in reply to Curle. | January 17, 2016 at 2:35 pm

        See Art. 2, Sect. 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

        The Army existed before the Constitution, during the Confederation.

        I kinda figure we had bases (forts) when we invaded Canada. Which we did.

          As I explained below in response to another of your tantrums, the constitution makes existence of the army contingent on re-appropriation (and thus re-authorization) every two years. Two years does not a ‘permanent’ army make. And, the existence of an army before the constitution has nothing to do with whether the constitution made such a thing permanent (which it did not).

          And of course the presence of a permanent standing army was of great concern to many of the founders, particularly Madison.

          Nor does the fact that temporary bases existed in the Revolution suggest the founders who feared authorizing an army for more than two years also intended to maintain bases in foreign countries much less overseas bases.

          The really odd thing about all this is how you miss the glaring inconsistency between a founding generation suspicious of standing armies generally and your belief that they nevertheless drafted the presidential qualifications section of the constitution to ensure children born in foreign countries (by American military members under your hypothetical) were ensured they could run for President. As if accommodating this very remote future concern was weighing on their minds as opposed to the more pressing matter of avoiding a president loyal to foreign power. The supposition that they were concerned about the presidential prospects of foreign stationed military members isn’t backed by any evidence presented here and, as I said, is a wildly remote concern for a country that could barely pay its debts from the first war.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2016 at 5:30 pm

          And, as I showed in response to your condescending bullshit, the Founders and their immediate successors MADE the Army both a standing and a permanent institution by their conduct.

          “The really odd thing about all this is how you miss the glaring inconsistency between a founding generation suspicious of standing armies generally [that’s a lie, a whole branch of them were strongly in favor of a standing army] and your belief that they nevertheless drafted the presidential qualifications section of the constitution to ensure children born in foreign countries (by American military members under your hypothetical) were ensured they could run for President.”

          The really, really odd thing is that I never said that.

        That of course is a very good point. Standing armies within the USA were problematic for the founders so an out of country forward base of a USA standing army would not have been very high on the list of things they were thinking about.

        Expansion of the country across the entire continent however was certainly on their minds.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 3:09 pm

          “Standing armies within the USA were problematic for the founders…”

          This ranks up there with your “eminent domain built the transcontinental railroads” stupidity, you historical moron.

          The Founders INHERITED a standing army from the Confederation. And they PROVIDED for it under the new Constitution. Jefferson himself (a FOUNDER kinda guy) opened the U.S. Military Academy in 1802. Dumb ass.

          Reading comprehension or even cognitive analysis us not Rags strong suit. Probably why he couldn’t pass the bar exam.

          Saying standing armies were problematic for the founders is not the same thing as saying there were no standing armies. It is a recognition of the many writings of the foubders expressing the8r concerns regarding standing armies after their experuence with the British standing army prior to the revolutionary war.

          Rags as people may have already noticed likes to shout his ignirance and cognitive disabilities in capital letters from the rooftops for all to see.

          Whaddya Putz

      janitor in reply to damocles. | January 17, 2016 at 2:38 pm

      The founders may not have anticipated wives being overseas on military bases.

Isn’t Canada one of the 57 states anyway?

Duh Donald isn’t learning from his mistakes.

“I don’t think Ted Cruz has a great chance, to be honest with you,” Trump told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in an interview on “This Week” Sunday. “Look, the truth is, he’s a nasty guy. He was so nice to me. I mean, I knew it. I was watching. I kept saying, ‘Come on Ted. Let’s go, okay.’ But he’s a nasty guy. Nobody likes him. Nobody in Congress likes him. Nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him. He’s a very –- he’s got an edge that’s not good. You can’t make deals with people like that and it’s not a good thing. It’s not a good thing for the country. Very nasty guy.”

So, the Progressive deal-maker, Mr. Establishment, thinks that a guy with principles is unlikable?

Jeff Sessions seems to think Mr. Cruz is wonderful. Mitch McConnell, not so much…

    Trump is just telling the truth. Cruz is sheldon from big bang theory but without the warm fuzzy personality.

    Jeff Sessions also likes Trump. He appeared on stage with Trump at Trump rally in Alabama and even put a Trump Make America Great hat on.

    I think Cruz is still waiting for Sessions or any other Senator to appear at one of his rallies.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 1:38 pm

      Yeh. T-rump is very popular. Obama, John McAnus, Geraldo Rivera, Larry “Bork” Tribe, etc. all joined him in his LEFTY attack on Mr. Cruz.

      I’ll bet T-rump could get Nanny Pelosi,Harry Reid, Bill “Red New York values” DeBlasio, and Chuckie “Cameras” Schumer on stage with him if he gave them MORE money or endorsements.

      Whaddaya thank, spunky?

        Spunky thinks Sessions has appeared at Trump rally of 30000 plus in Alabama and Cruz can’t get Sessions or any other republican senator to show up at one of his rallies of 100 people in a local cafeter I a or wall street bankers home.

        That is what spunky thinks.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 3:23 pm

          An easily tested crock of shit that I expect will be shattered in a few days.

          Spunky.

          So in other words what I wrote was absolutely true. Sessions has never nor any other senator ever appeared on stage with Cruz, but you hope someday one of the 100 people at one of Cruz’s rallies in the future might be a senator.

          So your use of Sessions in your post about Cruz battling in senate to imply Sessions supported Cruz was complete bullshit. And you got burned by not knowing that Sessions appeared on stage with Trump and even put on a Trump make america great again hat.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 4:03 pm

          So, the Progressive deal-maker, Mr. Establishment, thinks that a guy with principles is unlikable?

          Jeff Sessions seems to think Mr. Cruz is wonderful. Mitch McConnell, not so much…

          See, Sessions and Cruz have teamed up to actually do good things for the country. Sessions seems to like Cruz, and trusts him. Giving the lie to Duh Donald’s lying attack.

          That’s why THEY killed the present iteration of the TPA, AND killed the immigration act in 2013 that your Mr. Establishment crony thug was pushing FOR.

          Lying sack of shit.

          I don’t know Mr. Session’s mind, but I’d bet he’d show up at any mass rally in his state.

          Wearing a boob-bait “Hope And Change” ball cap is a BFD for you, huh, T-rump sucker. OOOOOOooooooo, a talisman…!!!

          Your “thing” with big crowds is the fallacy of popular opinion. When Kenye West runs, I bet he’ll pull in a lot of people, too. Will that make him right about anything?

          Bernie Sanders pulls 30000 person crowds, too. Is he right?

          Spunky.

Professor, I would have been more convinced of your central argument had it been more directly stated rather than inferred, that British law was so completely variant according to the use of natural born Subject that it encompassed persons born of British parents but not on territory under the sovereignty of the Crown. Now, perhaps that is the case, but I’d think with all the historic precedents you’ve considered you’d have told us were this the case. This seems a distinction that matters.

The key matter at hand is whether Cruz, born to American parents on territory under Canadian sovereignty at time of birth and at present, is natural born as that term was understood at the founding. Were it the case that British law, in all its permutations, never reached further than say considering Subjects natural born when born on territories formerly under the sovereignty of another power but presently under the control of the British, even that wouldn’t offer support for the Cruz is natural born theory because Canada, of course, remains outside of American jurisdiction at all relevant times. What we need, for your argument to be persuasive, is evidence the British gave natural born status to persons born on territory that had never been subject to British sovereignty either at the time of birth and including up to the point of challenge.

    -snip- Really excellent point Curle.

    Skookum in reply to Curle. | January 19, 2016 at 1:16 am

    “The key matter at hand is whether Cruz, born to American parents on territory under Canadian sovereignty at time of birth … .”

    Correction — Cruz’s father was not a US citizen at the time of Cruz’s birth. He was either a Cuban or Canadian citizen at the time. Rafael Bienvenido Cruz did not become a US citizen until 2005.

    Thus, per Senate Resolution 511, passed in 2008 for the purpose of coneying the Senate’s belief that McCain is a natural-born citizen (the right conclusion for less than accurate reasons), neither Cruz nor Obama (or Rubio or Jindal) are NBCs:

    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

    “That John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

    -https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

    I wonder what the obviously corrupt Perfesser Jake’s motives are behind installing another ineligible oerson in the Oval Office.

      I wonder what the obviously corrupt Perfesser Jake’s motives are behind installing another ineligible oerson in the Oval Office.

      I wonder what evidence the random internet commenter who calls himself “Skookum” has to back up his claim that Professor Jacobson, our host here, is “obviously corrupt.”

“I’d be interested to see evidence that the very thought of overseas bases or even a permanent standing military ever occurred to the founders…”

To which you stupidly replied AFTER I’d just showed the provision AND history in the Constitution…

“Duuuuuherp! That of course is a very good point. Standing armies within the USA were problematic for the founders so an out of country forward base of a USA standing army would not have been very high on the list of things they were thinking about.”

Except your conclusion is false, and your preamble is contradicted by the FACTS.

Putz holster.

    “To which you stupidly replied AFTER I’d just showed the provision AND history in the Constitution…”

    Here’s my comment. I’ve placed in brackets the words you appear to have skipped over: “I’d be interested to see evidence that the very thought of [overseas] bases or even a [permanent] standing military ever occurred to the founders [except as something to be avoided].”

    The constitution limits the existence of the Army to two year periods subject to re-authorization by Congress for reasons articulated by Madison; many of the founders were suspicious of a ‘permanent’ army (please pay attention to words used in internet comments it helps with internet conversations).

    The invasion of Canada during the Revolution did not contemplate that the US would be establishing permanent bases on land that remained foreign territory. BTW – Canada is not overseas.

    I see that those on here who’ve noted your difficulties with reading comprehension were correct.

      Ragspierre in reply to Curle. | January 17, 2016 at 4:52 pm

      “The constitution limits the existence of the Army to two year periods…”

      Yep. Now name the time the FOUNDERS (and their immediate successors) DIDN’T extend that period every two years. So they were SOOOOOOOOoooooo afraid of a standing army, they BOTH provided for it to exist (as it had BEFORE the Constitution), AND they always funded it.

      After the taking control of Lake Erie in 1813, the Americans were able to seize parts of western Upper Canada, burn York and defeat Tecumseh, which caused his Indian Confederacy to collapse. Following ending victories in the province of Upper Canada, which dubbed the U.S. Army “Regulars, by God!”, British troops were able to capture and burn Washington. The regular army, however, proved they were professional and capable of defeating the British army during the invasions of Plattsburgh and Baltimore, prompting British agreement on the previously rejected terms of a status quo ante bellum.

      Yes. Canada is not “overseas”. It was foreign soil on which bases (forts) were established DURING the life-time of the Founders.

      You’re another historic moron.

        The language of the constitution speaks for itself. And, of course, this discussion is about the constitution and founders intent not the intent of successors or subsequent political battles nor do events of 1812 tell us what was on the minds of the founders in 1787. By the way, if you are looking for historic precedents, what military bases did the US maintain in Canada post Revolution? Answer: none. Here’s Madison’s comments:

        “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

          Ragspierre in reply to Curle. | January 17, 2016 at 5:53 pm

          And history has proven Madison and the Anti-Federalists were wrong on that issue. Wildly wrong.

          James Wilson argued that “the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution.” In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, “These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them.”

          STFW…???

          Ragspierre in reply to Curle. | January 17, 2016 at 6:07 pm

          “The language of the constitution speaks for itself. And, of course, this discussion is about the constitution and founders intent…”

          That’s a straw man. The Constitution speaks for itself ambiguously at times. As here. And you’ve been putting words in its mouth, divining intent you pull out of your ass.

          The idea that the Founders…ALLLLLLLL of whom started as subjects of a foreign power…would consider an American child born in a foreign county “suspect” as to loyalty and unfit to serve as POTUS is asinine.

          Plus, the Prof. is right. (See the period?)

          So if the founders did think foreign born children could be suspect as to loyalty they would have established some limiting principles as to who could be POTUS. Limiting principles like requiring POTUS to be a natural born citizen. And if the founders in the first congress wanted to experiment with calling foreign born child to citizen a natural born citizen eligible for POTUS they could pass a statute in 1790 that said that. If they had some lingering concerns though they could express them with requirements about how many years and when such foreign born child or foreign born child’s parents had to live in USA to be natural born citizen. Because you know foreign born children naturally suspect.

          Then if these founders became concerned that expanding definition of natural born citizen with a statute in 1790 was a bad or dangerous idea and they wanted to return to the original limiting principle of natural born citizen that existed prior to statute in 1790 they could change the 1790 Act say in 1795 to eliminate the express language that awarded natural born citizen status to foreign born child of citizen and make them only naturalized citizens not eligible for POTUS.

          Sadly, in 1795 when the 5 year experiment in awarding natural born citizen status to foreign born child of citizen ended that would mean that 200 years later when a natural born Canadian citizen of a USA mother wants to be POTUS… He isn’t qualified.

          Ragspierre in reply to Curle. | January 17, 2016 at 8:41 pm

          I find the idea of you typing all that bullshit out simply exquisite, liar.

          You are wrong. The Prof….and good sense and morality…are right.

          Your Donald is a lying pig, and you and he BOTH know it.

https://youtu.be/jSv_PBjS3EY

Ted Cruz, lauded and introduced by…

The lying Progressive, Duh Donald.

Heh…!!!

Question: If the arguments saing Cruz is not NBC are speculation. Doesn’t that make the arguments he is NBC are also speculation. If the best professor can say is one side is speculation as opposed to saying they are wrong, then that means claiming the other side is correct is also just speculation.

    amwick in reply to kimosaabe. | January 18, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    I read this and read it again. The problem is I have no idea who Andy Prior is, but it is an interesting essay/argument, even if it isn’t proof. With all respect to Professor Jacobson, my own opinion is that the Framers of our constitution had every intention of making eligibility for POTUS very restrictive, their wording was an attempt to do that which backfired. So the conclusion of this article makes sense to me, even if it seems really unfair, even undemocratic. According to Mr. Prior, back in 1787, natural born was the same, linguistically speaking, as native. His conclusion is simple. To be eligible for POTUS, among other things, a candidate must born here(or US territory), and both parents must be citizens at the time birth. I only wish this had been hashed out 10 years ago, because right now it looks like an attack on current presidential candidates and that isn’t right either.

So what I’m not understanding is why Obama’s place of birth was an issue at all for birthers. Wasn’t his mother a US citizen? If yes, that would make Obama a natural born citizen regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, right?

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-cruz-birther-bible-because-trump-is.html#more

T-rump can’t deal with Cruz on issues. Hell, he can’t even speak to “his” position papers (because, of course, they aren’t his!).

So he goes demagogue. It’s just who he is. His core is LEFTY Progressive.

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/ivanka-trump-radio-spot

Trump, great father, great kids, great entrepreneur, and will be great President.

New York has been the most attacked by Al Qaeda and ISIS starting on 9/11 through today, and New York has been the most successful of any city in providing security and safety for its citizens from these terrorists.

Trump is the only candidate who will bring these New York values that have worked to protect New York so successfully to secure our borders, build the wall, and protect our country from foreign invaders and terrorists. New York values also means not taking any crap from trading partners with whom we contract, and aggressively negotiating for the best interests of America.

I’ll take those Trump New York values every day over the washington politician and government bureaucrat values of people like Cruz, Rubio, and Bush who have never built a business, never met a payroll, and never done anything except scrounge for that next government appointee job.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/curbside-relief-masturbation-booth-pops-up-on-nyc-street-to-help-with-mid-day-stress/

    That’s a good example of New York values. And Gari’s Austin values, too.

    I called New York city “The Caliphate On Hudson” years ago. And why? Everyone here who’s honest knows the answerssssss to that.

    And we all know that T-rump is a squish on free speech ala “draw Mohamed”.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 1:50 pm

    “New York has been the most attacked by Al Qaeda and ISIS starting on 9/11 through today, and New York has been the most successful of any city in providing security and safety for its citizens from these terrorists.”

    Actually, you historical moron, attacks started WAY before 9/11.

    And New York’s successful response has shit-all to do with T-rump OR “New York values”. In fact, those successes were dragged out of the resistance from “New York values”.

    See the current orders from a New York court prohibiting the use of intelligence gleaned by the NYPD.

    Whadda lying moron…!!!

      “intelligence gleaned from NYPD”. The NYPD values at 9/11 and the way those NYPD values have successfully protected New York since 9/11 those are exactly the New York values Trump spoke about in the debate and the New York values he will bring to secure our borders, build the wall, and protect us from the terrorists.

      Those are Trump’s New York values.

      Rags and DeBlasio they prefer the masturbation booth apparently.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 2:06 pm

        But, you lying sack of shit, YOU and EVERYONE else KNOWS that Duh Donald is a PROGRESSIVE New York CRONY.

        Part of HIS New York values included endorsing DeBlasio.

        He LOVED him some Hellary and Dollar Bill Clinton.

        He gave $84,000 to Chuckie “Cameras”k Schumer.

        And we all know the REST of the story.

        Liar.

          Trump was invited to GOP convention by George H.W. Bush in 1988, supported Bush 41, McCain, Romney, etc.

          Most importantly, Trump is the only GOP candidate that gets it on security, the wall, immigration (Jeff Sessions consulted on his immigration plans and was present in Alabama on stage with Trump when he unveiled it) and our lousy job killing trade deals.

          Frankly, I don’t care what he did or said prior to 2015, because Trump unlike all the other politicians running for president is not a politician, is not PC, speaks his mind, and is the only candidate who can be trusted to:

          Build the wall

          Protect the country from terrorists

          Make great trade deals to bring jobs back to USA

          Make America Great Again

          Trump 2016, he is the ONLY rational choice.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 18, 2016 at 2:20 pm

          But, you lying sack of shit, YOU and EVERYONE else KNOWS that Duh Donald is a PROGRESSIVE New York CRONY.

          Part of HIS New York values included endorsing DeBlasio.

          He LOVED him some Hellary and Dollar Bill Clinton.

          He gave $84,000 to Chuckie “Cameras”k Schumer.

          And we all know the REST of the story.

          Liar.

          AND it is hilarious that you are so lost in fantasy that you have to truncate history at JUNE of 2015…!!!

          Suck that thing you think is a flute, Trump sucker…!!!

Top 20 mega donors to Ted Cruz. The guys who call the shots for him…
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00033085&cycle=2014

Note that number 1 on the top 20 list of donors is the PRO AMNESTY Club for Growth.

Little wonder that Cruz has come out promising not to deport any illegals can’t be trusted to build the wall and has flip flopped around on amnesty. He will flip back for amnesty if he should ever be elected.

Note how many of the top 20 are groups of lawyers that represent giant globalist corporations, or are globalist corporations, or are globalist banks like Goldman Sachs (all PRO AMNESTY).

The New York values that Ted Cruz does like are all the globalist corporations and lawyers that he runs to for MONEY.

Christie notes that Ted Cruz is consummate Washington insider crony, having spent his entire career government crony appointee jobs.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/18/chris-christie-ted-cruz-asinine-consummate-washington-insider/

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    Well Christy AND you are both lying sacks of shit.

    As you know, Cruz has worked in the private sector, no LESS than you have as a attorney.

    His ONLY time in Washington has been CONSPICUOUS for his work FIGHTING the political class, and DOING (not talking ala T-rump) work that furthers Conservative principles.

    Compare and contrast your lying Progressive deal-maker over the same period.

    Liar.

      Rags you are spinning too fast your not even coming up with even bad lies about your boy Cruz.

      Everyone knows Cruz graduated law school in 1995 and has worked one government job after another for 17 of those 20 years. He did work for a law firm for 2 or 3 years after he decided to prepare for and run for another government job as senator in 2012.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 2:15 pm

        But, Gaghdad Bob, people who are NOT STUPID (leaving you out) know that Cruz works EFFECTIVELY with collegues in BOTH houses, and provides needed leadership in driving CONSERVATIVE principles.

        Compare and contrast to your Progressive, deal-making, crony capitalist over the same period.

        Liar.

      Cruz has been CONSPICUOUS for having no friends and not being able to get along with anyone he works with.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429906/ted-cruzs-ethanol-stand-defies-industry-bipartisan-tradition

Again, compare and contrast PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE Cruz to sell-out Progressive deal-maker Mr. Establishment.

Heh…!!!

    You know how you can tell a real conservative like Cruz? He’s the guy willing to ship your job overseas because free trade is more important than fair trade. It is a matter of Cruz’s conservative principles to vote for 5500 page Obamatrade disaster even when he hasn’t read it and doesn’t understand it.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 6:02 pm

      Another STUPID lie!

      Cruz and Sessions KILLED the bill, lying sack of shit.

      And free trade WORKS for Americans, apart from being consistent with liberty and freedom to chose. Along with property rights, which we know T-rump despises…unless it’s HIS property!

      But I know you think a “strong man” needs to run BIG GOVERNMENT and tell us proles what to do.

      That is the definition of PROGRESSIVE. Idiot.

A corrupt, sophomoric legal analysis by a Soros-wing neocon.

Now the Constitution is worthless because it doesn’t include a glossary? As a result we’re supposed to ignore the rules of constitutional construction and ignore the word “natural” in NBC?

Perfesser Jake could be among Hillary’s most valuable covert assets.

    That is really quite a bit over the top Skookum. You can disagree with a person’s analysis and reasoning without all the unwarranted BS as to motives. The professor’s thinking is consistent with the majority of law professors opining on this matter.

    I think the approach they have all taken is wrong because they fail to properly consider the full implications of the 1790 and 1795 Acts. I think those acts make considerations of the prior 200 years of common law usage of the phrase “natural born subjects” moot and inapplicable.

    But I don’t question the motivations of those who disagree with me.

    They are law professors and the living breathing constitution or evolving constitution or active liberty constitution are what they have been taught to believe in by and large. Again I disagree with that but I can disagree without thinking they are acting out of evil intent or bad motives.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 5:39 pm

      And YOU believe the Framers were a bunch of superstitious, paranoid, hateful guys who thought that “geography” at one’s birth determined one’s loyalty…

      which is only insane.

        I don’t have beliefs about the Founders hearts. I know what they wrote, and concerns about loyalty and geography where what they wrote about. So concerned they included those concerns in the constitution itself.

        You seem to think you can give a clinical diagnosis of insanity upon them. That isn’t anything I have said. I personally would have to say that if I had to chose between the founders being insane or the you the person claiming they are insane, I would say YOU RAGS are the insane party. I’ll side with the Founders.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/18/the-coming-cruz-attack-on-trump-not-only-is-he-a-fake-conservative-hes-establishment-all-the-way/

YEEEEeeeeeeup.

EzzzzzzzzACTly right…!!!

“Via the Daily Rushbo, here’s Rush Limbaugh from the first hour of today’s show arguing that Trump’s making a mistake by attacking Cruz as a nasty guy. That’s significant, not because it’s an attack on Trump’s populism but because conservative talk radio (apart from Glenn Beck) has been conspicuously warm to Trump’s candidacy until now.”

Well, and Mark Levin.

“Donald Trump sides with the Establishment in Washington: ‘Everybody hates Ted Cruz'”

Which is, of course, a lie. McConnell DAMN sure hates Ted Cruz, but what a WONDERFUL enemy for a good man to have…!!!

    Trump is not as conservative as Cruz. Wow like that is a revelation to anybody.

    You know what else Trump is not like Cruz?

    Trump is not:

    Born in Canada

    A government bureaucrat

    On the doll from pro amnesty super pacs, globalist corporations, globalist lawyers, and goldman sachs

    Already refusing to deport illegals

    Appearing regularly before tiny little crowds

    Far behind in every primary state except Iowa

    Willing to ship you job overseas in support of Obamatrade

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 5:57 pm

      Trump is not:

      Born in Canada: irrelevant

      A government bureaucrat: nether is Cruz, liar

      On the doll from pro amnesty super pacs, globalist corporations, globalist lawyers, and goldman sachs: another OBVIOUS lie, shown by his record

      Already refusing to deport illegals: another of you lies, proven by his own positions

      Appearing regularly before tiny little crowds: the fallacy of popular opinion, in addition to being another lie

      Far behind in every primary state except Iowa: we’ll see

      Willing to ship you job overseas in support of Obamatrade: another lie, but you will never stop. You are incapable of honesty.

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.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 9:49 pm

    Gawd, you AND Falwell are total dupes.

    You’ll believe any flucking time-worn urban myth, with your lips firmly planted on T-rump’s bung.

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.

    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,,.!!!!

      Nope. These are the words of a brill8ant businessman who went from negative net worth after two government caused real estate recessions to 10 billion net worth and no debt today.

      Hey !!

        Oh not my words but Charlie Gasparino Fox Business Analyst.

        Bammmm BOOOOMM Spunky is down !!

        Hey!!

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 18, 2016 at 10:39 pm

        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.
        _________________________________________

        Mssr. Arti d’Deal sucked the big one, you moron.

        He’s a LOOOOOOOSER, and you are a delusional cult follower.

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.

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.

    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.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend