MARK LEVIN explains that Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen…

Mark Levin took a few minutes tonight to address the question of Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for president and says Cruz absolutely is a natural born citizen.



He explains below:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
newest oldest most voted
Ralph Trout
Guest
Ralph Trout

hahaha…it’s been my experience that anyone who tries to make a case that Cruz is not eligible also just happens to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. So how many here fit in that category.

Hugh Hudson
Guest
Hugh Hudson

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, and that was repealed in 1802.
Mark Levin is doing much harm. His “practical considerations” argument is completely bogus.

Michael Ferguson
Guest
Michael Ferguson

It was difficult to get through all the comments containing so many personal insults. Big problem with social-media is it isn’t very sociable. Article II, Section 1 wording in the Constitution remains the same today as originally adopted/ratified. The Library of Congress contains Farrand’s records (Robert Farrand was a Constitutional Convention scribe) of the debate around Article II. Original proposed wording was that the office of President required a “citizen of one of the several states.” Also in the Library of Congress is a letter written by John Jay (who eventually became first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court) to George Washington (who was a delegate to the Convention) proposing the requirement be “natural-born citizen.” The founders/framers understood the distinction. The US Supreme Court cited The Law of Nations at least four times from its inception through 1875 when it issued the ruling in Minor v. Happersett, in which… Read more »

Hugh Hudson
Guest
Hugh Hudson

Michael, I completely agree!

Paul Wade
Guest
Paul Wade

I agree also. If a child born in the USA is a natural born citizen, that means every child born to a mother who was an illegal alien is a natural born citizen.

That means that mother can take their child back to their home nation and that child can come back to the USA when they reach the age of 20 years and live in the USA for the next 15 years to become president of the [good] ol’ USA.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

JPTravis1 K-Bob 
Yep. Always ends the same way. Douchebag comes in. Blames Mod for “stifling” debate because douchebag can’t read the thread to see the actual debate going on. 
Predictable.  Go find a site you can pretend to dominate. You’re done here.

JPTravis1
Guest
JPTravis1

K-Bob JPTravis1 Sounds like I struck a nerve.  As for debating what you wrote, I did.  Specifically.  You didn’t.  You completely ignored both points I made to regurgitate gratuitous insults.  You make a perfect moderator by the way and I bet you’re hot stuff on the condo association, too.  No need to respond.  Clearly you don’t intend to discuss anything seriously so I’m done.

WillJamesWynne
Guest
WillJamesWynne

Keyes Laurel A dmacleo
Natural law can NEVER be abrogated by man-made law.
The FF did not define nbC in the Constitution because they assumed subsequent generations would look to the Law of Nations, which they cited in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, for said definition.
See Book I, Chapter 19, sections 212 and 215.

WillJamesWynne
Guest
WillJamesWynne

ajtelles  
See the Law of Nations, Book I, chapter 19, sections 212 and 215.
“natural born Citizen” = children born to citizen fathers. Citizenship of mother and place of birth are irrelevant.

Steve McIntosh
Guest
Steve McIntosh

Law of Nations book does not define our constitution or our laws!

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

JPTravis1 K-Bob  
You have a serious problem with projection here.
I made a point and you’re doing the tpical, “moderator stifling debate” thing.
This always ends exactly the same way.  Why not buck the trend and debate what I wrote instead of inventing words as if they were mine?
You impugn a man’s honor all you want.  All that means is very few people can possibly take you seriously. That’s not our problem, it’s yours.
Going for the “worship” attack is very leftist, by the way.  People accuse anyone who dares to defend Palin, now Cruz, or any other serious Conservative, of “worship.”  Happens all the time.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

Keyes K-Bob JPTravis1  
So?  That has nothing to do with my comment.

Orangeone
Guest
Orangeone

Keyes Orangeone DebbyX Just because the left uses the “fair” argument for everything doesn’t mean it is always wrong.  US citizens have the right to run for office, including potus, if the requirements are met.  Telling a person they have lost that right because they cannot prove their biological father, the rapist, was a US citizen at the time of the rape is not appropriate and I do not believe the intent of the forefathers.

Debby
Member
Debby

Orangeone DebbyX If the child is born the States, then I would say that child is a US citizen.  Ship the dirt bag rapist back to the hole he came from……………..after 99 years in prison. I don’t want my tax money paying to bury his sorry A.  His existence in this Country doesn’t count for anything……….he’s illegal.  So the mom and child are fine by me.

Laurel
Member
Laurel

Keyes Laurel A You are never ever going to nullify Obama. Not now not ever. You cannot unwind the hands of time and you cannot unring a bell.

Accept it.

Laurel
Member
Laurel

JPTravis1 Laurel A dmacleo I think you need to re-read that again and take special note of the context.

Laurel
Member
Laurel

Keyes Laurel A dmacleo That is your opinion nothing more.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

Orangeone Keyes DebbyX 
If it is KNOWN the father was a foreigner.
I was not aware that the office of the presidency was a right. I thought it was a privilege.
Again, a person’s personal ambition should not trump the safety of the American people. I don’t care if that’s not fair. That is the doctrine of the left.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

CalCoolidge K-Bob ajtelles 
The 14th amendment had NOTHING to do with the natural born requirement. No where does that amendment say the requirement for natural born has been rescinded.
The 14th amendment was about one thing….giving citizenship to the newly freed slaves.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

pushtheredbutton 
Precisely. Mark gets very nasty with people he disagrees with.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

pushtheredbutton 
Well stated.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

TheBeaver 
Palin is totally electable.
The problem the last go round was she was muzzled by the McCain campaign.
Running at the top of the ticket, she would be free to speak her mind and defend herself.
Remember, they say Reagan was unelectable too.
Whomever the Left says is unelectable…is the one they fear the most because they KNOW they ARE electable.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

CaseyGeorge TheBeaver 
For me with Paul it’s the fact he supports mass amnesty and refers to illegals as “undocumented citizens”!!

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

jdbaird sDee 
I tell people that IF Obama Sr. is O’s real father, O had dual citizenship with Great Britain. Do you believe our Founders would have wanted a president with dual citizenship with Great Britain…..the country we fought the Revolutionary War with in the first place?

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

CaseyGeorge jdbaird 
Everyone KNEW what natural born meant back then. They never dreamed they would need to put the definition into the document itself. They never dreamed we would become so dumbed down on our history and founding documents.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

sDee 
What he should say is, “It is clear I do NOT meet the requirement of “Natural Born” and therefore can never be president. The Constitution and the best interests of the American people trumps my or any person’s personal ambition.”

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

JPTravis1 linguaphonica 
LOL.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

sDee linguaphonica 
….BAM!….

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

JPTravis1 Laurel A dmacleo 
Isn’t that an outrage? EVERY US citizen has standing in regards to our Commander in Chief!!! He works for us!

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

Laurel A dmacleo 
Our Founders never intended for the original intent to be tossed out.
Jefferson even commented that judges would change the Constitution to suit their fancy and it would become like a thing of wax …or something along those lines.
They never intended for the courts to decide the definitions of words in the Constitution.
Everyone knew what natural born meant back then and they never dreamed they would need to put a definition of it in the Constitution itself.
It’s like “pizza” today. If you wrote something about “pizza” you would not explain what “pizza” meant because you know everyone knows what pizza means.

JPTravis1
Guest
JPTravis1

K-Bob JPTravis1 Since he started his diatribe by declaring Cruz a “naturalized” citizen when he meant “natural born citizen,” the accusation of nonsense is valid.  As for the notion that Levin cannot have his honor impugned… why not?  Is he a saint?  Is he an entity you worship?  He was throwing insults and impugning honor left and right himself (or Himself), so maybe you should ask yourself whether you are a moderator who encourages discussion or a moderator who stifles it.  Frankly, I’ve never met one of the latter.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

CalCoolidge K-Bob Laurel A 
I have found it’s mostly libertarians….Ron Paul supporters making this claim. I have also met southern Republicans making this claim.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

K-Bob Laurel A 
That always gets me.
I recently read a history book published 30 years after the war ended.
Of course we all know SC fired the FIRST shots on Ft. Sumter, but what I didn’t know was a few months later the South INVADED KENTUCKY in TWO places…..thereby convincing KY to side with North.
I’d say it was the War of Southern aggression.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

Laurel A 
The requirement of the president is a moot point?
If we put in a usurper we can never nullify what Obama has done.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

ajtelles 
You are correct.
One poster said we are having this discussion because there are different definitions out there. Um…no….we are having this discussion because people THINK there are different definitions out there.
Passing immigration laws over the years will NEVER change the definition of Natural Born. It will NEVER change the fact that the president MUST have natural born status.

Orangeone
Guest
Orangeone

Keyes Orangeone DebbyX Most rapes are unsolved. That would punish the child and strip them of their rights.  I can’t go along with that. Plus think of children that have been adopted decades back where records were not best kept.  If they do not know of the sperm donor, they cannot have loyalty to another country.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

Orangeone DebbyX 
Not if the criminal was a foreigner.
A person’s personal ambition (to be president) cannot outweigh the safety of the American people and the sovereignty of this great nation.

Keyes
Guest
Keyes

K-Bob JPTravis1 
Levin impugns peoples honor when he yells at them in regards to this issue. He is not above criticism.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

JPTravis1  
This is the kind of comment that goes nowhere in this debate.  When you wade in and declare that someone like Levin is “spouting nonsense” and also impugn his honor, you’ve lost any credibility.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

This page is starting to look like some of the pages at freerepublic.  I need to remind folks that long-form cut-and-paste is against the http://www.therightscoop.com/the-right-scoop-commenting-rules/.  Besides which we do have freerepublic for that, after all, as well as many fine sites dedicated to this issue.  This is more of a video clip site, and Scoop prefers brevity.  It’s been a successful formula so far, so we can assume he still means it. A good idea is to link to source material with a short comment letting people know what’s at the link. A bad idea is putting up the same stuff everyone has already mentioned.  That makes it look like we’re just a bunch of yahoos here to spout off, and not pay attention to anything written by someone else. This isn’t directed at any of you in particular, it’s just the way the site works.  Feel free to link… Read more »

WillJamesWynne
Guest
WillJamesWynne

The “natural born Citizen” In order to know the definition of “natural born Citizen,” one can only know it by looking back to the Founding Fathers. In the opening paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, they make specific reference to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” In paragraph two, they build on that reference with this affirmation of God given “natural” rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Clearly, the Founders saw natural born Citizenship as something defined by the “Laws of Nature” and NOT by ANY man made law. So what is the source they saw as authoritative in defining a natural born Citizen? The work known as The Law of Nations, by Emerich de Vattel. Article I,… Read more »

WillJamesWynne
Guest
WillJamesWynne

ajtelles 
The Founders would rightly disagree with you, Levin and ALL who espouse erroneous definitions of the “natural born Citizen.” Said nbC status can ONLY be conferred upon the children of citizen fathers. Citizenship of mothers and place of birth are IRRELEVANT!

baoyi
Guest
baoyi

tinyurl.com/kk6tldj

Back to Top of Comments