Really Mark? Not a constitutional issue? Are you kidding me? We’re talking about presidential eligibility! Obviously it is a constitutional issue because we are trying to determine whether Rafael “Ted” Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen pursuant to Art 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States and thus eligible to be POTUS and commander-in-chief of the United States military. Geeeeez, I would say that it is absolutely a fundamental constitutional issue! Does Levin actually listen to what he is saying?
Since the Cruz camp has refused to offer any documentation other than his Canadian birth certificate and his mother’s American birth certificate how does anyone know (including Mark Levin) that Cruz has ever been an American citizen? And how do we know that Ted’s mommy was NOT a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth in 1970? As of this writing all FOIA requests for corroborating documentation have been denied for privacy reasons! Really? So just because Obama got away with it in 2008 and 2012 does that mean we have to accept a steady stream of ineligible candidates who refuse to provide their bona fides? I don’t think so.
In order to avoid any constitutional problem and to make matters clear, the Third Congress in 1795, with the leadership of then-Representative James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the Act of 1790, and changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." Clearly the Third Congress realized the error of their ways. The Naturalization Act of 1795 made it clear that there was to be no confusion or doubt that those children were not natural born citizens. This purposeful change in language made it clear these foreign-born children were merely citizens of the United States and not natural born citizens.
Apuzzo goes on: “Finally, allowing a child born on foreign soil to be President would have invited conflict with the foreign nation on whose soil the child was born. For example, Great Britain adhered to the concept of perpetual natural allegiance. Just imagine the Framers allowing a child born in Great Britain to two U.S. citizen parents (a perpetual natural born subject under English common law) after the adoption of the Constitution (post Article II grandfather time period) to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Also, “natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents. Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795.”
Levin asks “…why the brouhaha about where Obama was born because "there is no dispute as to his mother Ann Dunham being a citizen."
The inference being that Cruz is obviously eligible because we know his mother was born in America. Well I will tell you why Levin....because Obama’s purported mother was UNDER AGE to confer citizenship to baby Barry under existing US naturalization and immigration law in 1961. The very naturalization laws you conveniently use to argue Natural Born Citizenship for Cruz also applies to Obama! And I might add that’s assuming that Barry was born in 1961 and that Ann Stanley Dunham was in fact his mother! Facts which have never been proven.
Then there is the inconvenient truth that there is no proof of where Obama was physically born. The birth certificate is a forgery but when has Levin ever shown any interest in researching that?