"Trump
Talk" About "Cruz Talk" About Natural Born Citizen
Here's
a short
7
minute transcript
(23min.
50sec. to 30min. 50sec)
of Donald
Trump's speech (an excellent example of energetic "Trump
Talk") at his campaign rally in Clear Lake, Iowa
on January 9, 2016, in which Trump challenges Sen. Cruz to get a
declaratory judgment in court to clarify his eligibility to be POTUS
because he was not born "in
the land" as he, Trump, had always understood natural
born citizen to mean and to require for eligibility to be president.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8Qkvck7u90
[...snip...]
@23min
50sec to 28min – 4m 10s
"Here's
one [a poll] in South Carolina, CBS, Trump 38, Cruz is second
at 23. You know what that is. I mean that's a massive difference. So,
we're doing good and we're going to do good here too. We're going to
win and we're going to come in first place.
"But,
let me tell you, Ted. So Ted's a nice guy, and I like him, and he
likes me. A lot of other people don't like him, by the way, I must
tell you that. But I like him. Why do I like him? Because he's been
very nice to me. Alright?
"But,
here's a problem. He's talking about natural born citizen. Right?
Now, if he ever got the nomination, you know the Democrats are going
to bring a major suit. He was born in Canada. Whether we like it,
don't like it. He lived there. He was there. He was born in Canada. I
guess his parents voted in Canada. A lot of things. I mean a lot of
things happen here.
"So,
you're born in Canada. It's immediately a little bit of a problem.
Now, gave up, gave up his citizenship, like, what, sixteen, eighteen
months ago. Joint citizenship. Did, he had a joint citizenship,
right?
"But,
here's the problem. Lawrence Tribe is from Harvard University Law
School; very great lawyer and a constitutional expert. So, he's on
television last night and he said about natural born citizen that
this matter is not a settled matter. It is wrong to say, this is an
exact quote, '[It is wrong to say] it is a settled matter because it
is not.'
"Now,
just so you understand, that means there's a question. It's not a
settled matter. He was born in Canada. And, I say to Ted. And as a
Republican I say it 'cause I think it's very important. You gotta get
it straightened out.
"Now,
you can go for what's called a declaratory judgment, where you go to
the courts and you say there is a problem where there is a problem of
interpretation. And, you put a lot of papers in and you get a ruling
from a judge because you can not put somebody there, folks, that's
going to go in and he's going to be immediately sued by the
Democrats because they're saying he was born in Canada, he's not
allowed to run for president. And if there's that doubt, don't
forget, these law suits.
"Who
knows more about law suits than I do? [applause] I'm the king. I'm
the king. These law suits take two, three, four years.
"So,
you can't have somebody running; you cannot have somebody running and
have a law suit. And people have already said they're going to bring
the law suit. They say, 'if he get's the nomination we're bringing a
law suit' as to natural born citizenship.
"And,
honestly, I don't know, because some people say you have to be born
in the land. Ok? You have to be born
in the land. That's what I always thought before. You have
to be born on the land.
So, he was born in Canada.
<<>>
[Here
are some of Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe's comments from
Breitbart.com]
>>
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/09/trump-trolls-cruz-again-cites-harvards-laurence-tribe-natural-born-citizen-matter-not-yet-settled/
"Trump
was citing comments that Laurence
Tribe—a
high-profile liberal constitutional law professor at Harvard who
taught both Cruz and President Barack Obama among other high profile
figures—recently told ABC News that he
does not believe the natural born citizen question is “settled
law.”
“ 'I
don’t agree that it’s ‘settled law,’ '
Tribe
said. 'The
Supreme Court has never addressed the issue one way or the other, as
I believe Ted ought to know.'
”
"Tribe
added that he
personally believes Cruz is eligible,
but that doesn’t mean it’s “settled law.”
“ 'My
own view as a constitutional scholar is that the better
view
— the one most consistent
with the entire Constitution —
is the broader
definition,
according to
which Cruz
would be eligible,”
Tribe said, noting that he believes that a natural born citizen
should include, as ABC News wrote, “anyone
who is a U.S. citizen at birth and doesn’t need to be naturalized.'
”
<<>>
If
Prof. Tribe really thinks that the "better view" is
the "broader definition" because it is "consistent"
with the "entire" Constitution and so that helps
Cruz's eligibility, I have some question for the law professor and
others.
Professor
Tribe, does the "broader definition"
of the "entire" Constitution include ONLY Article II
Section 1 clause 5?
Professor
Tribe, does the "broader definition"
of the "entire" Constitution include A2S1c5 and ALSO
the Fourteenth Amendment?
Professor
Tribe, does the "broader definition"
of the "entire" Constitution include A2S1c5 (Trump),
the 14th Amendment (Rubio)
and ALSO statutes of Congress (Cruz)?
Professor
Tribe, if the "broader definition" of
the "entire" Constitution helps Sen. Cruz's
eligibility, what is the "narrow view" of the "entire"
Constitution that hurts Sen. Cruz's eligibility and whom does the
"narrow view" help?
Professor
Tribe, does the "broader definition"
of the "entire" Constitution, which includes both A2S1c5
and the 14th Amendment, help not
ONLY the person with two
U.S. citizen parents like Donald Trump but ALSO
the person with one
U.S. citizen parent like Sen. Ted Cruz and ALSO
the person with zero
U.S. citizen parents like Sen. Marco Rubio?
Professor
Tribe, does the "narrow definition" of
the "entire" Constitution, which includes ONLY
A2S1c5 and the 14th Amendment, include
and help
the person with only two
U.S. citizen parents like Donald Trump and exclude
and hurt the persons with only
one U.S. citizen
parent like Sen. Cruz and also exclude
and hurt persons with zero
U.S. citizen parents like Sen. Rubio?
Finally,
why do the Professor and others NOT say that the "broader
definition" of the "entire"
Constitution helps Donald Trump?
Could
it be that the "narrow
definition"
of the "entire"
Constitution is sufficient because the "narrow
definition"
includes ONLY
Article II Section 1 clause 5 because
Donald Trump's
father was born on U.S. soil and his mother, born on foreign soil,
naturalized BEFORE
Trump was born on U.S. soil?
These
should be very easy questions for Professor Lawrence Tribe and
Professor Robert Natelson and Professor William Jacobson and Jack
Maskell and Andrew McCarthy and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and Rush
Limbaugh and Mark Levin to answer.
Right?
The
"narrow
definition"
means that Donald
Trump
needs
ONLY
Article II Section 1 clause 5 for POTUS eligibility and he does
NOT
need the "broader
definition"
of the "entire"
Constitution, A2S1c5
AND the 14th
Amendment, and he ALSO does NOT
need statutes of Congress (1952
Immigration and Nationality Act),
because
the
A2S1c5 "narrow
definition"
of
ONLY
singular U.S. citizenship ONLY
by birth on U.S. soil ONLY
to two U.S. citizen married parents is
sufficient.
Does
Prof. Tribe understand that ONLY
singular U.S. citizenship is
what John Jay meant when he underlined the word "born"
in "natural
born Citizen"
in his note to George Washington, and which Washington passed on to
the framers in 1787? Born means "born"
with ONLY
singular
U.S. citizenship.
THAT
is why
a "natural born Citizen" does NOT
need to renounce foreign citizenship before running for president.
Not
needing to renounce foreign citizenship
is why Donald Trump and
most
of
the other Republican candidates are
eligible to the office of President and why Sen. Cruz is not.
PS.
Dr.
Carson's father was married to another woman when he married his
mother before Dr. Carson's birth, so Dr. Carson may not be eligible.
As
a Christian woman, a Seventh-day Adventist, she could not stay
"married"
to his father.
Both
Sen.
Cruz's eligibility and Dr. Carson's eligibility are "not
settled"
as Prof. Tribe might say.
Unless,
of course, Dr. Carson takes the biblical "broad
way"
that leads to destruction by accepting Prof. Tribes unsettled
"theory"
that the "better
view"
is the "broader
definition"
of the "entire"
Constitution, a "better
view"
which incorporates the "narrow
definition"
of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment and, since the 1790 Naturalization
Act was repealed five years later with the 1795 Naturalization Act, a
"better
view"
which incorporates the "broader
definition"
of the 1952
Immigration and Naturalization Act,
a statute of Congress, into the "narrow
definition"
of the 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 language.
One
wonders what John
Jay
and George
Washington
and the 1787
framers
of the language of A2S1c5 would think and say about Prof. Tribes
"better
view"
and the "broader
definition"
that is "consistent"
with the "entire"
Constitution concerning being "...eligible
to the Office of President?"
By
implication,
the
"better
view" of
a "broader
definition"
is
so
"broad"
that Prof.
Tribe's "unsettled"
theory of his
"definition"
allows
for including
statutes of Congress from 1790 to 2016 to
help Sen. Cruz's eligibility: “Tribe
said, noting that he believes that a natural born citizen should
include 'anyone who
is a U.S. citizen at birth [14th
Amendment and statutes] and
doesn’t need to be naturalized.'
”
And
by extended implication, Prof. Tribe's "broader
definition"
"should
include"
Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley and other
Fourteenth Amendment anchor babies since the 1898
United States v.
Wong Kim Ark
erroneous decision
has
come to be construed to imply that
even a child born on U.S. soil to foreign legal residents is not only
a U.S. "citizen"
but should
also
be
called
a
"natural
born Citizen"
and
"...eligible
to the Office of President."
And
to extend the implication even further, if Prof. Tribes "unsettled"
theory of a "broader
definition"
is not rebutted and refuted with an Article
V
convention of states to propose an amendment to clarify that
the
1868 original
intent of the Fourteenth Amendment
did
NOT
include for POTUS eligibility the children born to one
(Cruz)
or zero
(Rubio)
U.S. citizen parents.
If
the Fourteenth Amendment is not clarified,
the Fourteenth Amendment "citizen"
will
eventually be construed to apply to even Muslim
jihadi anchor
babies of legal
aliens AND
illegal aliens
so that it
will be said that "natural
born Citizen
"should
include"
even
anchor babies with zero
U.S. citizen parents
and
it will be proposed, based on Prof. Tribe's "unsettled"
"borader definition"
theory that even
anchor babies of illegal aliens
wil
be said to be
"...eligible
to the Office of President."
That's
nuts, right?
<<>>
[Trump
Talk continues here]
"Now,
John McCain, he had the same problem. The difference is his two
parents were both in the military. They were both in the military,
and he was born in a military base. Ok. I understand that. I mean,
it's a military base. What are you going to do, say, you know, mom
and dad, you should have taken me back home to be born. I can't run
for president. He was born in a military base, and I understand that.
And, by the way, Laurence
Tribe represented John McCain on that, and he said he [Tribe] was
troubled by it. They won, but he was always troubled by it. It
bothered him, but he also understood it. But, with Cruz, he said,
it's a problem.
"Now,
if it's a problem, they gotta work it out because you can't give
somebody a nomination—I think we're going to win, just so you
understand. I don't want to be like a negative person, and I don't
want to win this way. I don't want to win this way. I want to win
fair and square. And, based on all the polls, it looks like I'm doing
awfully well.
"But,
you can't have a person running for office—even though
Ted
is very glib and he goes out and he says,
well, I'm
a natural born citizen.
The prob..., the
point is, you're not.
You gotta get a declaratory judgment. You have to have the courts
come up with a ruling or you have a
candidate who just cannot run.
Because, the other side will immediately bring suit and you've got
that cloud on your head. And, you can't have that cloud on your head.
<<>>
[At
this point the energetic "Trump Talk" about Sen. Cruz's
eligibility transitions to energetic "Trump Talk" about
winning where and how the other candidates don't have a chance, like
New York because of upstate New York, and with 20% of Democrats in
addition to the remnant Reagan Democrats.
I
included the "winning" political talk below to show how
Trump makes news and headlines. He spent only four minutes on
"natural born Citizen" and the internet is going crazy, for
and against Trump. Mark Levin just can't get any rest from what he
calls "chasing shiny objects" and the "birther"
talk.]
<<>>
"You
know, the Republicans have a structural disadvantage to start off
with.
"Speaking
of that, I think I'm going to do great in New York, a state that they
don't ever even talk about. Did you ever notice where they say, you
have to win Florida. I think I will. You have to win Ohio. Now, Ohio
is interesting because I do great in Ohio. I'm killing Kasich in
Ohio. Everyone said, maybe you should make him your running mate and
you'll win Ohio. I said, yeah, there's only one problem, I'm killing
him in the polls. Right? You know, it's the same thing like in
Florida where you're beating them and they say, why don't you pick
one of them. So, it's interesting. Pennsylvania, we're going to do
great. What they've done to the industries in Pennsylvania like the
coal industry, I guarantee you, I'm going to do great in
Pennsylvania.
"But
I think I'm going to do great in states that are not considered in
play. I think New York, you know, they came out with a poll the other
day, you probably saw it, upstate New York loves Trump. And, I think
I'll do well in Manhattan too. I live there. But, it's a little on
the liberal side, that's ok. You know what the truth is, whether it's
liberal or not liberal, whether it's Democrat or whatever, people
want safety. They want our country to be great again [applause].
They want lower taxes [applause].
"So,
I think that I'm going to win states that these people up there, back
there with all of the cameras, they don't even talk about. I think
we're going to win states that aren't even talked about. Because, the
other people are not going to win any of those states. I mean,
there's not a chance. You know, Ted and Marco and all these people
are not going to win New York, and they're not going to have a chance
of winning New York. I have a good chance of winning. They like me. I
mean, sometimes they think I'm a little wild, but that's ok. But,
they like me in New York. ... So, a place like New York, which isn't
even thought of, hasen't been won in decades, all of a sudden they're
starting to say, you know, Trump would have a chance because upstate
New York ... because it is in such trouble, they think I have a good
chance of winning New York. By the way, nobody else does.
"The
other thing is, it just came out in one of the magazines and
newspapers, that if Trump gets the nomination, they think he's going
to take twenty percent of the Democrat vote. And, I think so too
[applause]. Do you remember the old little group of people,
they're so great, I love those people, some of them are still around,
and it was called Democrats for, who, Reagan. Remember how many
people voted for Ronald Reagan? We're going to have the same thing.
And, they're not polling that stuff. We're going to have the same
thing.
"Then,
I'm going to do great with the Hispanics."
[...snip...]
Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment