What happened to Ann Coulter? She used to be a rock solid Conservative. Her books and columns used to be bedrocks of Conservative thought. Then, something happened. She started supporting super squishy Republicans, starting with her love of Chris Christie. She’s now become an uber-Trumpbot. She had a little hissy fit towards SC Gov. Nikki Haley regarding Haley’s shots towards Trump, Tweeting “Trump should deport Nikki Haley.†Ace thinks this is a silly joke, that it was not serious, and, I agree, it was silly, but, it shows Coulter’s mindset, especially in terms of the way she’s been acting the past 4-5 years. Consider that her dream ticket would be Trump/Romney. Now, she’s arguing that Ted Cruz is not “natural born”
(Daily Caller) Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,†eligible to run for president, and “corrected†myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!
But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.†(Never let the kids at Kinko’s do your legal research.)
I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy — as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers.
She even goes back to court case to PROVE THIS
The phrase “natural born†is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin — a Scot — could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.
Goodness!
A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born — but only by “naturalization,†i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not “natural born.â€
Because Cruz’s citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had “any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit†— as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).
Isn’t it fantastic that she’s doing the work of Democrats? She says there’s no conceivable argument being offered by anyone that Cruz is truly natural born, then follows with this
The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.â€
So, law says he is. Thanks, Ann. Of course, she tries to shoot that one down, and ends with
Take it like a man, Ted — and maybe President Trump will make you attorney general.
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
2 points Teach by using ONLY the plural didn’t that 1790 law indicate that BOTH Parents had to be citizens?
2nd that law in 1790 made citizens naturalized citizens, (naturalized by new law) not natural BORN citizens especially viewed through the lens of English Common law
Not unless you want to assert that the only time this applies is when the parents have multiple children at one time (twins, triplets.) After all, “children” is plural too.
Why would citizens need to be “naturalized” John? They already ARE citizens.
Using 1790 president, women aren’t eligible for POTUS either, amendments only gave them the right to vote, not hold office by 1790 readings of the constitution.
[…] Ann, Ann, Ann, you self-serving RINO! Doing everything you can to derail Ted Cruz, the ONLY solid Conservative still running. William Teach asks what happened to Ann Coulter, the Conservative rock […]