Of course, it could be as simple as Marco Rubio actually honoring his word … You know, the pledge all of the candidates made months ago to support the nominee, even if it wasn’t them. People seemed to make a huge deal out of getting Trump to “sign the pledge”… well, the same pledge was called for upon the other candidates as well.
So I guess this means that for Glenn, one’s word actually doesn’t mean anything. I guess this means for Glenn, honor is a character flaw instead of a virtue. I guess this means for Glenn, “supporting” someone means that you’re supposed to be unenthusiastic and never put your heart into that “support.” – - somehow, I suspect that most of the rest of us see things a little differently than Glenn does. … But then, it also sounds like Glenn, in the process here, abandoned any possible claim to moral authority on this matter quite some time ago.
Glenn is a typical pundit. He is exstatic, when he thinks everyone is heeding his opinion/advice. He tells everyone not to drink the liberal/progressive kool-aid and, goes nuts, when they refuse to drink his. He's causing his own credibility to be questioned, now. This election cycle is causing a lot of folks to expose their own hypocrisies and, they don't like it.
 March 13, 2016 at 6:56pm
Hmmm . . . maybe Mr. Legend should have a conversation with Pastor Darrell Scott about just how “racist” Mr. Trump really is . . . unless all he’s interested in doing is to continue fomenting racial division in this country.
 March 6, 2016 at 1:00pm
Once, Glen Beck actually stood for Constitutional principles and genuinely advocated what was best for the country. . . . WHAT happened!
Look, Glen, we “get” that you don’t like Donald Trump, but your solution to that is appealing to reprehensible smear tactics and character assassination on the order of the likes of Joseph Goebbels, all to promote someone who is not only ineligible for the office of President, but unqualified as well? You would have us again elect a junior Senator whose leadership credentials include precisely ZERO significant pieces of legislation passed into law and has NEVER actually run a major organization, such as a state or large corporation; a person who’s made it clear that he’s going to govern based on ideology rather than within the framework of the Constitution. . . . Well, we’ve seen over the last two terms how well THAT seems to have worked, and you want to lay the ground work for that being the way we choose our leaders going forward!?!
The better question is to ask if they really were his principles.
Has Trump ever, as you put it, appealed "to reprehensible smear tactics and character assassination?"
[-1] January 29, 2016 at 3:13pm
One of the other things this poll proves is that pastors are likely more familiar with the tenets of the Bible than they are with the Constitution. Ted Cruz is not Constitutionally eligible to be President.
It’s sad that Glenn Beck, who used to be such a staunch supporter of the Constitution and Constitutional principles has now abandoned them for a cult of personality . . . I was hoping we’d left that behind with Obama supporters.
Didn't Obama's presidency eliminate that requirement?
Sorry, you're not the judge here on if Cruz is eligible. He was born with American citizenship. Deal with it.
January 28, 2016 at 11:57pm
OK. Glenn really doesn’t like Donald Trump. We get that.
It’s sad, however, that Glenn Beck, who used to be someone who promoted and stood by Constitutional principles has in essence thrown them under the bus and simply climbed onto the cult of personality bandwagon. That makes his criticism of someone elses stance, ostensibly to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed rights of religious freedom, doubly hypocritical on Glenn’s part.
January 12, 2016 at 3:32pm
In 1898, Supreme Court Justice Gray in delivering the opinion in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark stated “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, … by authority of Congress, exercised … by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens …”
Chief Judge Phillips in the 1951 case of Zimmer v. Acheson, U. S. Court of Appeals (10th Cir.) said of someone born outside the United States to two US citizen parents, who acquired their citizenship under Rev.Stat. § 1993 (the precursor of todays 8 USC 1401), that their citizenship “status as a citizen was that of a naturalized citizen and not a native-born citizen.
In 1971, Supreme Court Justice Black, said the following of foreign-born children of US citizens; “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, … Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”
It appears the position of the courts for well over a century is that foreign born children of US citizens who get their citizenship wholly by statutes are “naturalized” citizens. Horrors! Coulter’s right!
Opinions of various judges are just that--written opinions. They are not law. It's clear that a natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen at birth, regardless of whether that status at birth was a result of statutes.
[-1] January 6, 2016 at 1:18pm
In 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who just 4 years earlier had written the majority opinion in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk, had the following observation to make of foreign-born children of US citizens; “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.” hmmmm . . . That sounds like it applies to Ted Cruz.
o.O . . . Wouldn’t a US Supreme Court Justice be considered a more authoritative source than Neil Katyal & Paul Clement?
One of the purposes of the Naturalization Law(s) is to define who needs to be naturalized to be a citizen, and who does not. Those who possess citizenship at birth--as Sen. Cruz did--have no need of naturalization.
[-2] September 18, 2015 at 2:27am
o.O How about “Naturalized Citizen”?
“Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. . . . A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, . . . by authority of Congress, exercised . . . by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens.” – – Justice Horace Gray, majority opinion, US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Sen Cruz was born on foreign soil to a citizen parent acquiring his citizenship through Congressional enactments (The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and its successive amendments). Therefore, based on Justice Gray’s statement in the WKA case, he’s a naturalized citizen.
June 13, 2015 at 1:23am
Chuck, Grover is incorrect. If you read through both the majority opinion as well as the dissents, you’ll find that they’re entirely about naturalization law and whether or not the 14th Amendment’s protections are applicable to the plaintiff’s citizenship.
You might also want to make note of a passage in Justice Gray’s majority opinion in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark [a different section of which was cited by Justice Blackmun] in which he states “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized. . . by authority of Congress, . . . by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens . . .”, specifically citing foreign born children of citizens acquiring their citizenship through Congressional enactments, like INA 1952, as an example of “naturalized citizens.”
Chief Justice Roberts in the case of Zivotofsky v Clinton in reference to US citizenship law stated ““8 U. S. C. §1401(c); see Rogers v. Bellei, (1971) (foreign-born children of American citizens acquire citizenship at birth through “congressional generosity”) . . . The Constitution also gives Congress the power to make a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and pursuant to this power, Congress has enacted laws concerning the citizenship of children born abroad to parents who are citizens of this country, see United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
June 13, 2015 at 1:09am
“I don’t know what the hell you’ve been reading . . .”
Uhhh . . . the actual case opinion! Did you NOT notice the entire discussion by both Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion, as well as Justice Black’s dissent dealt entirely with naturalization law and whether or not the 14th Amendment was applicable to the plaintiff’s citizenship?
Did you NOT notice that the principal cases that were being referred to in both the majority opinion by Blackmun and the dissenting opinion by Black, Schneider v. Rusk and Afroyim v. Rusk were entirely about naturalized citizenship? Did you NOT take the time to even find out that the Court’s opinion in Afroyim v. Rusk was was actually written by Justice Black? One would hope that he had at least some understanding as to what his own opinion was about.
Referenced also, by Justice Blackmun was the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark. Another pertinent comment made by Justice Gray, though not specifically cited by Justice Blackmun is “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized. . . by authority of Congress, . . . by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens . . .”, specifically citing foreign born children of citizens acquiring their citizenship through Congressional enactments, like INA 1952, as an example of “naturalized citizens.”
Maybe you should read the opinion again with a more open mind.
June 12, 2015 at 10:42pm
Blackmun himself pointed out in the majority opinion that the source of Congress’ Constitutional power to make citizens rested on Article I sec. 8 when he quoted from Black’s majority opinion for Afroyim v. Rusk; “Congress’ power is to provide a uniform rule of naturalization and, when once exercised with respect to the individual, is exhausted, citing Mr. Chief Justice Marshall’s well-known but not uncontroversial dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824);”
Are you REALLY going to say after actually reading the case opinion, not to mention the dissents that ALL the members of the Court didn’t think that Bellei’s citizenship was acquired through the mechanism of Congress’ Constitutional power to establish “Rules of Naturalization”? All statutes that come into existence by means of Congressional enactments must rest upon some aspect of Congress’ Constitutionally prescribed powers. If the statutes by which Bellei acquired his citizenship weren’t dependent upon Congress’ power to establish “Rules of Naturalization” then what were they and why didn’t Justice Blackmun mention them instead of spending all his time talking about naturalization?
I think you’d do well to read the opinion again with a less closed mind, looking at what Justice Blackmun is really saying rather than what you don’t want him to say.
June 12, 2015 at 10:42pm
Why do you suppose Justice Black, the author of the majority opinion just 4 years earlier in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk stated “The majority opinion appears at times to rely on the argument that Bellei, while he concededly might have been a naturalized citizen, was not naturalized “in the United States.” Are you really saying that a United States Supreme Court Justice is going to indicate that the majority is saying something other than what their decision actually is? The only real dispute between the majority and those dissenting was whether or not Bellei’s citizenship enjoyed 14th Amendment protections, but there was no dispute as to the source of his citizenship.
Justice Black also says ““Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”
June 12, 2015 at 10:39pm
“The Court never referred to Aldo Bellei as a naturalized citizen.”
Just what do you think Justice Blackmun was referring to when he said Bellei’s citizenship was wholly statutory?
Maybe you missed the part in Blackmun’s decision when, referring to Justice Gray’s opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark said the following: “Then follows a most significant sentence:
“But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”
He goes on to state in the very next paragraph “The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, “No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with . . . .” United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 475 (1917).
Why do you suppose Blackmun spent so much time talking about naturalization, specifically citing two particular cases repeatedly, Schneider v. Rusk and Afroyim v. Rusk, both cases about naturalization, if naturalization wasn’t the issue?
Why do you suppose Justice Black, the author of the majority opinion just 4 years earlier in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk stated “The majority opinion appears at times to rely on the argument that Bellei, while he concededly might have been a naturalized citizen, was not naturaliz
 April 18, 2015 at 4:46am
“About the second exit is “Lucas Lane Road”
Uhhh . . . Not even close. Marin’s second exit, northbound out of San Francisco is Spencer Ave./Monte Mar Drive. Lucas Valley Road [which is named for John Lucas, a rancher in the 1800's] is the 14th northbound exit after the Golden Gate Bridge, roughly 18 miles PAST Sausalito and Tiburon.
While it’s true, most of the single family homes . . . OK, ALL of the single family homes along Lucas Valley road & its adjoining streets run $700k+, they’re also almost all tract housing built in the 1950′s. In Marin, that’s actually “affordable”. Out of the 13 larger cities and townships in the county, only 4 have median home prices under $1 million, and even the lowest of those, Novato, has a median home prices averaging $800k.
Supposedly, the community is supposed to be geared for teachers, seniors, retirees, and people who support communities in Marin such as police and fire personnel. There have actually been ongoing complaints and concerns expressed for quite some time that police and fire personnel who work here, can’t afford to actually live in the communities they serve.
While I won’t argue the characterization of Marinites having . . . elitist tendencies, there are some of us here trying to change that, George Lucas being one person who puts his money where his mouth is regarding giving back to their community. I don’t agree with him much politically, but if he manages to pull this off, it’s a plus for Marin.
March 22, 2015 at 6:33pm
Much as I like Ted Cruz, the fact of the matter is that he’s not eligible to legitimately hold either the office of President or Vice-President of the United States.
In the 1971 Roberts v. Bellei case decided by the US Supreme Court, the entire Court, both those holding to the majority opinion as well as those dissenting believed Aldo Bellei to be a naturalized citizen. The only dispute amongst the members of the Court was whether or not his citizenship enjoyed 14th Amendment protections, but they ALL agreed that the mechanism by which he acquired his citizenship was “wholly statutory” and thus that he was a naturalized citizen. Aldo Bellei was born outside of US territory as was Ted Cruz. Also, like Ted Cruz, Aldo Bellei’s father was not a US citizen. Aldo Bellei’s mother, like Ted Cruz’s mother “was” a US citizen and therefore furnished the basis for the application of US statutory law [currently 8 USC sec. 1401] to acquire his citizenship. Ted Cruz’s citizenship therefore was acquired in exactly the same manner as Aldo Bellei’s and, like Aldo Bellei, he MUST be a naturalized citizen.
The Constitutional requirement is that you have to be a natural born citizen to be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice-President. A “naturalized citizen” is not the same thing as a “natural born citizen.”
Oh here we go again! The regulars here will recognize this post as I have included it many times to show under US Naturalization and citizenship law Mr Cruz is eligible to be President and thereby also eligible as VP.
8 USC § 1401 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
Some tie the wording "Natural Born" in the Constitution to the definition in the (Swiss) Law of Nations that was used extensively during the writing of the Constitution. While I believe that was the intent of the Founders it was never so defined in law. The president cannot be a Naturalized citizen (members of Congress can) but the various ways one can claim citizenship by birth applies to the President. That includes an "anchor baby" born on US territory to non US Citizens!
teddlybar, Thank you. Someone else on here knows what the law really is. These people on here are in denial.
Flat out, Obama was not born in Hawaii. That is a fricking lie. If Obama the Kenyan can be President, then so can Cruz.
I don't know what the hell you've been reading, but it wasn't the actual opinions on the case of Rogers v Bellei because none of them assert that Mr. Bellei was a naturalized citizen. He was a citizen by birth who had lost his citizenship by virtue of never having resided in the United States for five consecutive years by the time he was 28, a requirement that was later repealed by Congress. If he had been a naturalized citizen, then he would still be a citizen, because there is no law limiting how long a citizen can live outside the country after being naturalized.
Back in 2008, I was of the same opinion, teddlybar.
The focus of my attention was John McCain being born in Panama.
Since then, I've looked into the issue and have been persuaded that "natural born" citizen is someone who is a citizen at birth -- i.e., someone who does not need to have been "naturalized."
I will check out the Bellei case right now to see if you are correct or if Grover is correct.
Anyway, I will be looking for the Supreme Court's rationale - not just the "bottom line."
 March 14, 2015 at 9:45pm
An opinion piece, even in as prestigious a publication as the Harvard Law Review does not carry the same authority as a US Supreme Court opinion. The US Supreme Court, generally considered the final arbiter of what’s Constitutional in our form of government has consistently indicated since the 1800′s that statutory citizens are “naturalized” citizens.
“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized. . . by authority of Congress, . . . by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens . . .” – – Justice Gray [Wong Kim Ark opinion]
“But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” – – Justice Blackmun [Rogers v Bellei opinion]
Aldo Bellei, like Ted Cruz, was born outside US territory. Aldo Bellei, like Ted Cruz, had a father who was NOT a US citizen. Aldo Bellei, like Ted Cruz, had a US citizen mother who provided a pathway to statutory US citizenship at birth. Aldo Bellei, was considered by the entire Court to be a naturalized citizen. . . . If Aldo Bellei was, then Ted Cruz is also. Naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President.
Then the one we have now is not eligible to be president. He was born out of the country, had a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. What's the difference???
As best as I can tell, the argument against Cruz is that the phrase "natural born citizen" does not mean what the plain language infers, a citizen naturalized at birth. The theory is that, in a dramatic departure from everything else in the Constitution, "natural" refers to the philosophical theories of natural law. Therefore, the phrase means a person who is a citizen of the United States, when born, under natural law. This is restricted to people born in the US, people born in the US with a US citizen father, or people born in the US with US citizen parents. The theory is kind of murky at this point.
Any SCOTUS decision about the Constitution is meaningless when you can read the words of the Founding Fathers. You have to know definitions of the time the Constitution was written. What you are citing is "case law" which again means nothing because they are not the words of the Founders. The Naturalization Act of March 1790 clearly states what a natural born citizen is:
..."And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” First Congress, Session II, Chapter 4, March, 26 1790
The Founders chose their words very carefully. It does not say “children of A citizen…” which would have meant, at the time, the Father, not the mother because Mother’s did not convey citizenship in their time. The statement is “children of CITIZENS” to be a child of citizens you have to have more than one parent that is a citizen–ergo FATHER AND MOTHER. This is further backed by the writings of Vattel whose writings the Founders studied extensively. http://www.americanclarion.com/constitution-vattel-natural-born-citizen-framers-knew-10184
The Court never referred to Aldo Bellei as a naturalized citizen. He was a citizen by birth who had lost his citizenship by virtue of never having resided in the United States for five consecutive years by the time he was 28, a requirement that was alter repealed by Congress. If he had been a naturalized citizen, then he would still be a citizen, because there is no law limiting how long a citizen can live outside the country after being naturalized.
 December 27, 2014 at 5:38pm
Regardless of “your” stance on the issue, if Cruz is nominated, you stand the risk, not only of losing an important voice in the Senate, but at the same time, losing the Presidential election as there are, I suspect, a signficant number of people who believe his birth in Canada disqualifies him from being eligible and therefore will not vote for him.
 November 29, 2014 at 4:12pm
” . . .wouldn’t you think the holders(/bank,financial institution) would have had the address of the owners?.If so why wouldn’t they have info on who was holding the bonds?”
It depends on what type of bonds they were. If they were registered bonds, you’d be correct, however if they were either bearer bonds or even older US Savings bonds, the issuer generally doesn’t contact the owner if they haven’t been turned in. Since they matured in 1992, the likelihood is that they were issued in the 1960′s. Bearer bonds were fairly common back then.
My suspicion is that they may have been bonds issued by the US treasury since they continued to accrue interest. Often bearer bonds cease paying interest once they mature.
After she passed away, I found some US bonds my Mom had that had been issued back in the 1940′s. I was surprised to learn they were still outstanding and earning interest.
[-1] November 17, 2014 at 11:46pm
Gee, I guess that means Ms. Behar also thinks David Ehrenstein is a racist since he’s the one that originally used the term in connection with Barak Obama in a column he wrote for the LA Times in March of 2007 titled ” Obama the Magic Negro”. . . . or is she going to take the position that those who are liberals with “black” heritage are “allowed” to use the term “Negro” indiscriminately?
The only thing Rush is guilty of is satirically referring to Mr. Ehrenstein’s OpEd by using Mr. Ehrenstein’s same terminology.
November 8, 2014 at 6:30pm
hmmm . . . Since this took place in California, what was the value of the necklace? If it was less than $950, then, under the rules of the just passed Proposition 47, this crime gets reduced to a misdemeanor. . . . In other words, he just gets a ticket instead of jail time.