Image 01 Image 03

One month ago Trump certain Rubio eligible, today not so much

One month ago Trump certain Rubio eligible, today not so much

I called it – as soon as Rubio rose to second place, Trump would cast doubt

About a month ago, when Donald Trump was claiming that Ted Cruz probably was not eligible to be president, Trump was questioned by Jake Tapper about whether Marco Rubio was eligible.

Trump exhibited some legal understanding of the issue, citing an op-ed written by Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe. Trump’s conclusion was that he had no doubts Rubio was eligible:

“It’s a different [than Ted Cruz], very different thing because he was born here. He was born on the land.”

As the attacks on Cruz’s eligibility rose in intensity and Trump threatened suit, I predicted that Trump would have a hard time holding that line if Rubio rose in the polls and became Trump’s main challenger:

Will The Donald also sue to keep Marco Rubio off the ballot if Marco gains momentum again and runs attack ads? After all, many of the people who claim Cruz is ineligible also claim Rubio is ineligible because his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth in the United States. (Yes, I address that claim also in my prior post.)

I think Trump should sue. I’m not just saying that. I don’t know that Trump has standing, but he’s probably closer to it than most people out there. So go ahead, Donald, file the lawsuit, don’t just threaten it. And do it against Rubio too. I’m sick of hearing the threat. Just do it.

After the South Carolina primary, Rubio arguably is Trump’s main challenger.

And as I predicted, Trump didn’t hold the line on Rubio being eligible.

Today Trump was interviewed by George Stephanopoulous. When asked the same question Jake Tapper had asked a month ago, but now said he was not not familiar with Rubio’s situation, and had never looked at it. Despite having told Tapper he looked at it. And unlike his lack of prior concern, now he was not certain:

“I’m not sure, let people make their own determination … I don’t know. I’ve never looked at it, George, honestly, I’ve never looked at it.  Somebody said he’s not and I retweeted it.”

Nothing has changed in the Constitution. Only in the political landscape.

For my August 2013 analysis of why both Cruz and Rubio are eligible, regardless of where they stand in the polls, see natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This is me, borrowing Sarah Hoyt’s shocked face.

Is there anything that Trump has not changed his views on, as the political weather changes, except from his belief in his greatness and everyone else’s incompetence?

It take a huge capacity for fantasy to see Trump as a reliable champion of any principles aside from ego.

    Lee Jan in reply to Radegunda. | February 23, 2016 at 7:47 am

    Trump stated that the government should not give the public land back to the states because they might misuse or mess up the land. Hours later he is screaming that Cruz is a liar for reporting Trump’s exact words. Calling Cruz out as sick person for reporting Trump’s position on returning the land to the states.
    There is a madman in our midst, and his name is Donald Trump.

This is just Der Donald, lying and using his normal dirty tricks.

This is how he’s done “business” all his long life. He’s a stinking Collectivist fraud.

Time to wake up people.

    Spiny Norman in reply to Ragspierre. | February 21, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    But, but… he’s not beholden to Wall Street crony capitalist money men, see?

    Because he IS one. Or something… >_<

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Spiny Norman. | February 22, 2016 at 3:25 pm

      Trump is typical of Wall Street in that he risks little of his own money in any venture. (Trump has been loaning money to his campaign rather than donating it outright.)

      In every large real estate development deal I have reviewed the developer had almost no skin in the game. A corporation he controlled would be the general partner and held no more than a couple of percentage points of the equity. The limited partners (LP) provided the rest of the equity. Sometimes, but not always, the developer also held a LP share as an individual. Eighty percent of the capital or more was in the form of loans, usually non recourse.

      Then there were the ancillary contracts. Often companies controlled by the developer had development and marketing contracts with the development venture. Before the site is even excavated the developer was collecting a fixed monthly sum under those contracts.

      Thus real estate development at that level can be a stacked deck in the developer’s favor. Even if a developer loses their equity stake, they may have earned more than that in development and marketing fees. And that’s only the legit part. The possibility for kickbacks in these deals are numerous.

    Lee Jan in reply to Ragspierre. | February 22, 2016 at 8:16 am

    Anyone ask tRump if this wife was a citizen when she latched onto him? Did she become a US citizen upon her marriage? Just wondering…

      MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Lee Jan. | February 22, 2016 at 9:02 am

      A similar thought occurred to me when I heard Trump’s wife speak with a heavy accent after his big win in SC. Then I also remembered his first wife was also an immigrant. So two of this three wives are immigrants, and four of his five children have immigrant mothers.

      And Trump will take a hard line against immigration.

      It is actually sort of consistent with how he has conducted his business affairs. He doesn’t gamble, but he builds casinos so little old ladies can feed their Social Security checks to slot machines. He doesn’t drink alcohol, but he has licensed his name on Vodka. He licenses his name on clothing imported from China, while bashing the Chinese trade practices and claiming they are stealing our jobs.

      The hypocrisy of it all is stunning.

        What’s almost as bad is the hypocrisy of some people who call themselves conservative — and who used to care “character” and maturity — but are now promoting Trump and making excuses for his manifestly poor character.

        The people who imagine that Trump will advance conservatism better than all the conservative “politicians” are obviously not very bright.

          NC Mountain Girl in reply to Radegunda. | February 22, 2016 at 3:32 pm

          From the beginning Trump’s attempted hijack of the Republican party has reminded me of “Fast Eddie” Vrdolyak’s of Chicago in the late 80s. Some Republicans who were not thinking straight saw putting out the welcome mat for the Democrat Alderman as an opportunity to become a majority party in Cook County.

          Talk about delusional

      davidfarrar in reply to Lee Jan. | February 22, 2016 at 7:03 pm

      The Doctrine of Couverture ended in 1922, or thereabouts, if memory serves.

By the way, Professor, the Birthers I’ve directed towards your NBC post summarily dismiss it, claiming you have no clue what your talking about (and are an obvious NWO type, IYKWIMAITYD), and insist various “amateur historians” have the Truth™ because they cite “actual case law” from the 18th and 19th centuries.

Oh, yeah, and all the Amendments to the Constitution after the first 10, the 13th and 14th in particular, are “invalid” because they were not properly approved. So says one especially adamant “scholar”.

A Venn diagram of the various schools of conspiracy theory, such as Birther, 9/11 Truther and New World Order would have an awful lot of overlap, from what I’ve seen.

This is Game Theory 101.

Don’t waste effort on fights which aren’t happening.

The obvious corollary is, when your fights are happening (or might very soon happen), then you’d better fight them.

Obviously, the fact that you didn’t fight earlier doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t fight now.

And through it all, you tell the press enough to keep them interested, but not a word more. Save what you can for later; they’re not going anywhere, they’ll be back.

This is all elementary stuff, and Trump clearly has it down cold, even if everybody else seems to find it deeply mystifying.

None of this means that he’d make a good president, but it does mean that he makes one hell of a candidate.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | February 21, 2016 at 11:18 pm

    Game theory is not what you describe.

    “Trump is playing six-dimension chess and all y’all are just too stoopid to see it!”

    snopercod in reply to tom swift. | February 22, 2016 at 6:34 am

    The “game” is to keep the delegates split between Rubio and Cruz. Does nobody remember that the RNC changed “Rule #40” to read:

    any candidate for president shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states” before their name is presented for nomination at the national convention.

    Spelling it out, unless Cruz or Rubio win a majority of the delegates in at least eight states, they can’t be nominated at the convention. That’s probably not going to happen as long as both Cruz and Rubio are still running.

All natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born. Wouldn’t need the adjectival phrase ‘natural born’ in the Constitution otherwise.

Here is a fairly powerful article arguing rather effectively (to this non-lawyer) that Ted Cruz is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and not eligible to be President:

As always, you may consider the source but judge for yourself based on the arguments proffered.

    Spiny Norman in reply to Daiwa. | February 21, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    There are 2 types of citizens of the United States of America, natural born and naturalized. If Senator Cruz is not a “natural born citizen”, when was he naturalized?

It’s only appropriate for Trump to flip-flop on Rubio’s eligibility – although saying “I don’t know” is hardly a flip-flop.

After all Rubio has been flopping like a fish out of water about amnesty – even on the same day, depending on whether he’s speaking in English or in Spanish.

    You are just doing what the O cultists do. Deflect, deny, and finally just plain make stuff up.

      great unknown in reply to Lee Jan. | February 22, 2016 at 11:27 am

      which part am I making up? surely not Rubio’s flip-flops on amnesty, as one of the leaders of the Group of Eight. For more information, try

      ad hominem arguments such as yours, on the other hand, are symptomatic – almost pathognomonic – of progressives.

        Ragspierre in reply to great unknown. | February 22, 2016 at 12:56 pm


        Your argument is on the fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque. It takes the form of saying, “Oh, yah. So and so does it, too!”

        It is fallacious in that it does NOT meet the wrong asserted. It IS a deflection.

        Noting your fallacy and attempt at deflection is NOT ‘ad homimen’ as you falsely assert, while trying to slime your opponent as a “progressive”.

          great unknown in reply to Ragspierre. | February 22, 2016 at 1:14 pm

          There was no fallacy noted, only claimed. Based on no evidence adduced, I was accused of “making stuff up.” That is ad hominem.

          And do not conflate ad hominem with ad hominem tu quoque; they are entirely different concepts. The latter is an accusation of hypocrisy, while perhaps admitting the truth of the argument itself. The former is simply a personal attack with no reference to the argument.

          Like I said, a progressive tactic.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 22, 2016 at 1:22 pm

          “The latter is an accusation of hypocrisy, while perhaps admitting the truth of the argument itself.”

          Again, bullshit. Your grasp of logic is non-existent. There is no taint of hypocrisy in ad hominem tu quoque. It’s entirely a means of deflecting from an assertion by misdirection, coupled with a counter-attack, rather than meeting the assertion on its merits.

          great unknown in reply to Ragspierre. | February 22, 2016 at 2:23 pm

          Once again, against unsupported assertions, I invoke a modicum of authority

          Note the use of the word hypocrisy in the articles.

          But that’s my fifty years of teaching at higher-education levels speaking. My years of following politics call on me to make a different response:

          Apparently the progressives are becoming terrified of Trump and are sending squads of otherwise unemployed trolls, or liberal-arts teachers, to smear him. Sorry for feeding you.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 22, 2016 at 2:51 pm

          Note that LACK of a requirement for any suggestion of hypocrisy, which I ALSO doubt you can define properly.

          But the point made still stands. Bullshit!

          NOBODY can justify T-rump’s OMNI-angulation (I coined the term) by citing to someone else flip-flopping.

          Another Ed in reply to Ragspierre. | February 23, 2016 at 2:39 am

          “All the world’s a stage,
          And all the men and women merely players;
          They have their exits and their entrances,
          And one man in his time plays many parts,
          His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
          Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
          Then, the whining school-boy with his satchel
          And shining morning face, creeping like snail
          Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
          Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
          Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then, a soldier,
          Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
          Jealous in honour, sudden, and quick in quarrel,
          Seeking the bubble reputation
          Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then, the justice,
          In fair round belly, with a good capon lined,
          With eyes severe, and beard of formal cut,
          Full of wise saws, and modern instances,
          And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
          Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
          With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
          His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
          For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
          Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
          And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
          That ends this strange eventful history,
          Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
          Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”

          -Jaques in Act II Scene VII of “As you Like It” by William Shakespeare,

          “Hypocrite” – from the Greek word for a stage actor

It is far from settled law whether either Cruz or Rubio are natural born citizens. Rubio’s case involves 14th amendment unlike Cruz. I happen to think neither one would be NBC under originalist interpretation of constitution and applicable statutes.

    inspectorudy in reply to Gary Britt. | February 22, 2016 at 12:40 am

    Blah blah blah. Don’t you ever get tired of the same old crap that no one on this site wants to see or read? Go find a legal forum to discuss your poorly reasoned analysis of the of the Constitution. There are only two terms used today to describe US citizens. Natural born or naturalized. One is from birth and one is from a legal process through which a person applies. There is no other term.

      Sorry, Inspector. Incorrect.

      “Naturalization” refers to the statutory process OR declaration by which someone who otherwise would NOT be a citizen becomes or is declared to be a citizen. It may involve an application process, but it need not — such as a statute declaring the citizenship from birth.

      Why the hell are you reading and commenting on my post then. If thine eyes offend thee pluck them out.

      Natural born citizenship comes at birth based on where you were born. Anyone born on foreign country soil obtains their citizenship by the terms and provisions of the Naturalization Act. They are naturalized citizens. There is no requirement in the constitution that says naturalized citizens must go through some bureaucratic paperwork process. That paperwork process is only required if the naturalization act requires it. It isn’t required by the Naturalization Statute in some circumstances.

      Rubio’s claims for citizenship come from 14th amendment if at all. It has never been litigated whether 14th amendment citizens in Rubios situation are natural born cit8zens or just citizens or not citizens at all.

    Mercyneal in reply to Gary Britt. | February 22, 2016 at 6:19 am

    Rubio was born here. Case closed.

    By the way: Andrew Jackson’s parents were both born in Ireland before moving to US.

      Neither of Rubio’s parents were citizens when he was born. Whether he qualifies as natural born citizen is not settled law.

      janitor in reply to Mercyneal. | February 22, 2016 at 12:38 pm

      Regarding the acnchor baby thing, I would like to see a challenge with a little more nuanced analysis of the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which is not, as it has been assumed, all that black and white.

      E.g., a couple on a tourist visa who are in the U.S. for say three months are not totally “subject to the jurisdiction”. If while here, they work on making money by accessing their non-U.S. website or doing a few stock trades, they are not subject to the jurisdiction’s income taxation. Nor do they have to file an income tax return. If while here, they decide to separate, they cannot access the court system to get divorced. If they have their school-age child with them, they do not have to enroll the kid in school. They can drive on their foreign license without being required to obtain a local license, even if they are then in a state that mandates this be done within a period such as 45 days. If war breaks out, and the draft is in effect, the young husband cannot be conscripted for service. In other words, they are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. They are visitors merely passing through.

      While these issues should not affect anyone whose non-citizen parents are LEGAL permanent “residents”, I do think that we need to re-examine the anchor baby issue as it is being applied to birth tourism, and not simply dismiss it out of hand as fully “settled”.

        Milhouse in reply to janitor. | February 23, 2016 at 1:03 am

        This is all nonsense. While they are in the USA they are completely subject to US jurisdiction. Congress can make whatever laws it likes for them and they have to comply. That Congress has not chosen to conscript them, or tax money they made abroad, is of no relevance. At any moment it could change its mind, and that is jurisdiction. The obvious signs of jurisdiction are that they are subject to arrest, and must answer subpoenas.

Watch and learn. I mean, if you’re able to learn.

Trump is not flipflopping. He previously has questioned the concept of anchor babies, saying that it would have to be resolved in the courts.

And now it appears that Rubio’s parents weren’t immigrants fleeing from Castro, but employees of Meyer Lansky’s casino businesses who were imported into the U.S. in 1956 to work in Nevada.

    Mercyneal in reply to janitor. | February 22, 2016 at 6:22 am

    I know many people I know from Canada where the ather had a work permit in the US and the mother had no visa and they had kids in the US. These children have US passports.

      There are citizens and there are natural born citizens. Only natural born citizens can be President. It is not settled law whether a person born in USA to non-citizen parents is a natural born citizen. They might be citizens but the question of whether they are natural born citizens is not settled.

      Children born in a foreign country like Cruz ARE NOT CITIZENS at all, except by an act of congress (i.e., a law passed by congress) what citizenship if any such foreign born child receives is determined by the language of the statute that grants them citizenship in the first place.

        My friend was an Air Force Bride, she and her husband lived all over the world. Her two sons were born in France, both parents were US citizens. She does not believe that either of her sons would have been eligible to become president. How did this get so muddled?

          davidfarrar in reply to amwick. | February 22, 2016 at 7:30 pm

          Two words: Gender politics. You see, time was, a woman’s allegiance followed her husband’s after marriage, but no more. When the US accepts a country’s ambassador’s credentials, it also recognizes their citizenship jurisdiction as well, as they would recognize our own. Since the whole purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to, “…provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”.. John Jay.

          This sounds to me like there was a deep and abiding fear of the admission of “foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and an even greater fear they would not devolve on to the Commander in Chief of the American army; does it not?

“It is far from settled law whether either Cruz or Rubio are natural born citizens” – in the minds of those with severe myopia, who have “walled” off any other thought than their own security and who have chosen to ignore the morally relative liberalism of one Progressive Trumph.

When questioned by Tapper and Stephanopoulous, Trump says “I don’t know”. How is this going after Rubio’s eligibility? Sounds like a set up for a quote to make a story. How did Cruz, Carson and Kasich answer? Oh, they weren’t asked……

We all hoped the Republican primary would be a referendum on the ineffective GOP leadership, we just didn’t hope for Trump. Focused criticism on his policies (well outlined on his site) would be more useful than knee jerk reactions to MSM talking points and edited sound bites from his rallies.

    Radegunda in reply to Floridamom. | February 22, 2016 at 11:46 am

    Polling has found Trump fans to be the least interested in policy of any candidate-supporter group.

    It doesn’t bother them when Trump is shown to favor Democrat-leaning policies, even though their primary argument “for” Trump is their rage at Republicans for not rolling back or stopping enough of the Democrat agenda.

    Trump trashes Republicans as heartless for even thinking about restructuring entitlements (the main driver of the looming debt crisis) — and Trump fans still insist that he’s the only one who will solve the debt problem, because “he’s a businessman and he understands budgets.”

    It’s at least as bizarre as the Obama cult.

The bottom line with Trump: he has no honor, no integrity, and no firm convictions on any issue. He is not a conservative, he is not a Republican and he’s not a Democrat. He and his followers are “Whatever”. And to paraphrase: “Whatever you sow, so shall you reap.”

Rubio’s response called it.

Trump raises the issue, which sucks all of the media oxygen out, and Rubio can’t get his message out.

I’m afraid the professor is taking the bait too.


As for Rubio, he is totally un vetted. He has nowhere to go but down, and he’s potentially got skeletons in his closet. The under news about Rubio, including foam parties and getting arrested with the gay porn king of Miami, is troubling. Nobody’s really investigated him ever. (Even in his senate run the focus was on Charlie Crist and the democrats didn’t run a serious candidate).

Rubio is not eligible for POTUS. Neither is Ted Cruz. Both are not natural born citizens. Period.

I wish all the folks arguing so ardently in defense of Trump would do Professor Jacobsen the courtesy of reading his extremely thorough and well-researched piece (linked above) before they bloviate. Ignorance is such a wasteful thing.

    I did. I’ve also read all the references. And more. Perhaps you ought to read the professor’s post more clearly yourself. His conclusion was not a dogmatic statement, but a considered legal opinion. The opinions of other lawyers, including this one, differ to one degree or aspect or another.

    I find that I easily could argue a conclusion either way, so that means that it’s not that clear. (I also think that the professor’s analysis would have been better served for non-lawyers to have not lumped together the different questions of “natural born” and 14th Amendment anchor babies.)

    Regarding Cruz, an originalist interpretation of the Constitution would come down on the wrong side for him, because, among other things, originally it would have been impossible for Cruz’s mother, a married woman, to have held a U.S. citizenship while married to a non-citizen. I tend to agree with Laurence Tribe that a case coming down today would not be decided on a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and that that’s ironic, since for Cruz to be held to be a natural-born citizen is contrary to how Cruz ostensibly would have interpreted this himself, were he not affected.

    Among some of those other things, I am a little disturbed by Cruz’s repeating that he is a citizen from birth, so he’s “natural born”. That’s a simplistic soundbite and I can see the discomfort he has when he makes this statement.

    If someone is a “natural born citizen”, one would think that no statute passed by Congress could take that fact away. That means that it is not a frivolous argument to question whether a statute — and the naturalization statutes have varied over the years — effectively can render persons in different circumstances at different times sometimes “natural born” and sometimes not.

      Milhouse in reply to janitor. | February 23, 2016 at 10:17 am

      If someone is a “natural born citizen”, one would think that no statute passed by Congress could take that fact away.

      Under the 14th amendment the same is true even of a naturalized citizen. Once a person has legitimately obtained US citizenship, no matter in what fashion, it’s his by right, and Congress is powerless to take it away.

      (If the purported naturalization was never valid in the first place then of course the person never really had US citizenship, and Congress doesn’t have to take it away. E.g. if I were to set up shop conducting “naturalizations” for $1000 a pop, I could rake in good money and I might get away with it for a while, but all my victims would remain aliens no matter how sincerely they believed otherwise.)

Trump has the “anger” vote. “We’re mad as he|| and we’re not going to take it any more,” to quote the 1976 movie Network.

So the real question is, if the anger vote is all going to Trump, and little else, is he capped out at about 35-40%? When other candidates fold their tent then he may get none of their votes, and whoever stays in long enough, probably Rubio or Cruz, will eventually overtake Trump… a consolidation of the “un-angry?”

    Radegunda in reply to Twanger. | February 22, 2016 at 11:58 am

    … and maybe a few of the “somewhat angry” who have the rational capacity to understand that the candidate who has done most to advance the Democrats’ agenda, and who still often sounds like a Democrat, is not the best remedy for the problem of Republicans caving to Democrats.

    … and a few of the “somewhat angry” crowd who don’t want a president to “blow the whole thing up” (a phrase that Trump fans have actually used, and others like it).

    Trump is at 50% in Massachusetts. 45% in Nevada. And over 40% in several national polls.

    It is self delusional to think his support would not include at least 16% of the 65% of people not supporting him as first choice when he has 35% of people’s first choice votes. 35+16=51. Game over.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 22, 2016 at 12:36 pm

      I bet the Collectivist thug Der Donald does well in Collectivst Massive-two-spits!

      Likewise in Nevada, where they support the guy that Der Donald supported, Dirty Filthy Harry. BIG GOVERNMENT/BIG ORGANIZED CRIME, like New York City West.

      Game ON.

      Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 22, 2016 at 1:13 pm

      What’s really delusional (and bordering on insane) is insisting that Trump is an honest, principled man of selfless devotion to country and that he’s a reliable antidote to the problem of politicians breaking promises and betraying conservatism.

      And I’ve never said that there aren’t lots of easily deluded voters in a country that elected Obama twice.

      Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 22, 2016 at 1:25 pm

      Your main argument for Trump is basically “Look, a lot of other people are really gullible and have no principles!”

      Here’s the pattern:
      1.Trump says outrageous things, lies and contradicts himself, acts like a vindictive lout.
      2. Some people notice that Trump is a self-worshiping boor with no firm principles.
      3. Trump fans say “How dare you attack Trump! I’m even more determined to support him now!”
      4. Trump fans like Gary say “He’s still standing! That means he’s great!”

      That’s a perfect example of circular reasoning. It only means that a large part of the electorate is happy to ignore facts and throw away principles for the sake of a superhero fantasy.

        NC Mountain Girl in reply to Radegunda. | February 22, 2016 at 3:47 pm

        Exit polls show that Trump supporters are really mad at the system. They blame Democrat and Republican alike but Republicans hace become their biggest target right now.

        Angry people are not known for their reasoning abilities. Indeed, they can be so fixed on catharsis that they are more than capable of taking out the wrong targets.

        Consider people on the rebound from a painful relationship. A few often manage to end up married to someone far worse than the person they think initially did them wrong.

Ruh-row. Looks like the bigot Bierhall Bullyboi Britt will have to reform his lying memes…

It’s pretty funny being called “delusional” by the guy who thinks Trump as a model of family values, and who declared with firm conviction that I MUST be a Hillary-Bernie supporter and a lover of Fidel because I was criticizing Trump — mostly from the right, and on moral grounds.

Gary, you’ve demonstrated that you are comfortable drawing conclusions on no evidence at all, and even contrary to an abundance of evidence. No wonder you’re a Trump supporter. | February 22, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Does anyone remember Trump’s claims about Obama’s birth certificate? He made some pretty serious allegations … and then never backed them up, if memory serves.

Well, I don’t consider Rubio particularly eligible either.
But it has nothing to do with Citizenship.
I would think Trump would do better to just work with all the freely available history of all of Rubio’s stances, his accomplishments and associations.
Seems to me it would be a lot easier.
Un-forced errors aren’t the best strategy.

However, Attorney Mario Apuzzo did a long post about Rubio’s eligibility in May, 2015 (with more comments on the same subject in newer posts) so this was already out there and, strategically, it would have made no sense for Trump to bring this up unless it became an issue.

In 1971, when Sen Rubio was born, diplomatic relations with Cuba had been severed a decade earlier, making Sen Rubio a true “stateless” person born within the jurisdiction as a 14th Amendment US citizen at birth. However, Sen Rubio cannot be considered an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born citizen as his US citizenship was bestowed on him by the state, without his consent.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | February 23, 2016 at 12:08 am

According to Vittel’s 1758 Law of Nations, a natural born citizen is a person born of citizens. Seems both Cruz and Rubio are failing in that regard. By the way, Vittel is the source for the term natural born citizen as used by the founders. It was never questioned in court because everyone knew what it meant.

    It’s Vattel, you ignoramus. And no, he was not the founders’ source for the term “natural born citizen”.

      Skookum in reply to Milhouse. | February 24, 2016 at 12:46 am

      If Vattel’s “les naturels, ou indigènes” is not the source of the natural-born citizen clause, then what is?

      If birth on the land was enough to make one an NBC, why did the Framers see the need to exempt themselves via the grandfather provision?

      How many countries can one be a natural-born citizen of? Obama and Cruz claim two each.

      What is the difference between “natural born citizen” and “born citizen”? Every word in the Constitution must be given force and effect. If NBC is interpreted to mean BC, the interpretion illegally expunges the word “natural.” If you honor the word, as you must, NBCs must be a subset of BCs. What is the difference?

      Questions pseudoconservatives and modern liberal-progressives never try to answer.

An anchor baby, like Give-Em-Amnesty Rubio, is not natural born citizen.