Presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal challenged at Supreme Court

MMDNewswire ^ | February 4, 2015

[wtd]

• PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY OF TED CRUZ, MARCO RUBIO AND BOBBY JINDAL CHALLENGED AT SUPREME COURT

  Washington D.C. (MMD Newswire) February 4, 2015 – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal. In particular, Mrs. Fair argued that unresolved is whether or not these three are in fact "natural born Citizens".

  Mrs. Fair said: "Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents who were not United States citizens at the time of their respective births. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen. Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a 'citizen' of the United States at birth. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Ted Cruz by statute."

  As most all know, under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution: "No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President." Mrs. Fair continued: "That phrase 'natural born Citizen' has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. So are they "natural born Citizens" eligible to be President? I think the People deserve to know the answer to that question before the next Presidential Campaign starts in earnest."

  Mrs. Fair, who has shepherded her case through the complexities of the legal system by herself to the Supreme Court concluded: "My efforts were never about Mr. Obama as a person or a politician. Instead, my efforts were about insuring that the Constitution was respected and enforced by those charged with those duties. Where a phrase in the Constitution - such as 'natural born Citizen' - is undefined, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret such a phrase. As the Supreme Court itself said in the 1922 case of Fairchild v. Hughes, I have: 'the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.' By repeatedly refusing to 'say what the law is' regarding 'natural born Citizen', the Supreme Court would abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of their whim and caprice to whatever political ends that super-legislature may possess."

  See a copy of the petition here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/254604115/Fair-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari

  See the Supreme Court Docket for Case No 14-933 here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-933.htm

  For More Information Contact: TRACY A. FAIR: (410-552-5907) OR TRACYSPLACE2002@VERIZON.NET

[Nero Germanicus]

Nah, the topic under discussion was whether Congressman John Bingham’s statements on the floor of the House of Representatives were dispositive in interpretating the meaning of 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for bringing a name into it - I’ll look it up. But I do think you’re “over selling” Eastman and “under selling” Cruz. But you at least answered the question.

There is another man who has come to mind. Charles E. Rice, professor emeritus at the Law School of Notre Dame.

Here is a link to a free republic article about him.

And then we have Ann Coulter.

And George Will.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nah, the topic under discussion was whether Congressman John Bingham’s statements on the floor of the House of Representatives were dispositive in interpretating the meaning of 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

Your statement, to which mine was a response was this:

If Congress was to pass a bill and a president signed it into law or if the Supreme Court was to rule that two U.S. citizen parents are required in order to be a natural born citizen, I would be supportive, but that is not the case at this time.

I read that as meaning that you think "natural born citizen" can be changed by an act of congress. I was just pointing out that this is tantamount to amending the constitution by statute.

[C. Edmund Wright]

The anchor baby article is not relevant to this debate.

[DiogenesLamp]

The anchor baby article is not relevant to this debate.

I find that statement incomprehensible. The foundational premise of the one topic is the exact same as the foundational premise of the other. If they were equations, there would be an equal sign between them.

[Jim Noble]

When I took civics in high school (1966) it was universally accepted that birth in a state (or birth overseas to citizen parents) constituted being NBC. When George Romney was a leading contender for the GOP nomination in 1968, his birth in Mexico was never an issue.

In fact, I never heard an argument to the contrary until BHO was sworn in.

[Jim Noble]

“So you are not satisfied because a law defining common knowledge does not exist”

Your view of this matter is not common knowledge.

[Nero Germanicus]

The Declaration of Independence has no force of law and no enforcement mechanism. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause says that it is the constituion that is “the supreme law of the land.”
Article Six: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;” [excerpt]

[DiogenesLamp]

The Declaration of Independence has no force of law and no enforcement mechanism.

I dunno, it seems that it had a pretty good enforcement method. It beat England. Apparently it had some divine force of law behind it.

The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause says that it is the constituion that is “the supreme law of the land.”

The Declaration proves otherwise. When it was put forth, British Law also declared itself "the supreme law of the land", but when the dust settled, everyone saw that it wasn't.

Let's face it, if what the Declaration says is true; that it's power derives from "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" then what are the puny laws of man next to that?

I think the two things are on a collision course and I expect we shall see which is stronger in our lifetimes.

[DiogenesLamp]

When I took civics in high school (1966) it was universally accepted that birth in a state (or birth overseas to citizen parents) constituted being NBC. When George Romney was a leading contender for the GOP nomination in 1968, his birth in Mexico was never an issue.

That it wasn't made an issue (and I think it was) is not proof that one theory or the other is correct. As a matter of fact, how can you say that the requirement is to be born in the United States and then say that it's okay if you're not?

Is that doublespeak or something?

As for the matter never coming up before Obama, we've never seen this problem in our lifetimes before Obama. Had George Romney won the nomination in 1968, rest assured someone would have made an issue of it. They certainly did in 1916 when Charles Evans Hughes ran for President.

[Nero Germanicus]

You’re reading too much in to my statement; not “changed” but explicitly delineated.

In 1875 in Minor v Happersett, the Supreme Court said that “the Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”

I was suggesting that a possible “elsewhere” might be a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by a president.
All we need to do is look at what has occurred in the absence of such clarifying legislation.

[Beach333]

The immigration act of 1790 has been superseded by one in 1795 FWIW. It makes a if difference.

[Beach333]

When I took civics, we were taught that an NBC was born of two citizens on US soil. My brother was born in Bermuda, on a US naval base to two US citizens. We were told he could never be President because he didn’t meet the NBC a requirement. He had to choose between US and British citizenship at one point in his life.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend unless you have a political agenda?

And why would it ever be allowed if your agenda is political?

Who cares if someone is popular? Who cares if Obama has slipped by this requirement? (I do but it really is a moot point now) Does anyone here really want to leave this open to have another obama? Clearly he is not American through education or his heart.

Those that voted for him were intoxicated by hope and change, or they wanted free stuff. He is clearly not an NBC no matter how you argue it. He is a statutory citizen...not by birthright, but by statute.

Any clear-headed person knows this.

If you care about this Country, you wouldn’t allow this again and you would demand better than allow anyone with divided interests to run for the highest office. I’m appalled how the political agenda is driving us to our ruin.

[Nero Germanicus]

The Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the term “natural born citizen” and it increased the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States. The 1795 Act also specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for “free white persons.” It also changed the requirement in the 1790 Act of “good character” to read “good moral character.”

[Beach333]

No sh*t Sherlock. I know what it did. Some people choose to use it for their argument acting as if it were still in force. Some people know better.

[Nero Germanicus]

Also, some people think that it was the “Immigration Act of 1795” but other people know that it was the Naturalization Act of 1795.

[GregNH]

It was common knowledge at the time.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Were Cruz, Rubio and Jindal anchor babies? I know Cruz was not.

[DiogenesLamp]

You’re reading too much in to my statement; not “changed” but explicitly delineated.

I dunno, "delineating" it differently from what it has always been sounds like a "change" to me.

In 1875 in Minor v Happersett, the Supreme Court said that “the Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”

I was suggesting that a possible “elsewhere” might be a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by a president.

Which again sounds to my ear as if you think the meaning is fungible. I regard it as an absolute, like the meaning of "pi"; a fundamental constant, not subject to redefinition.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well I agree. Unfortunately I think that ship has sailed, and now “natural born citizen” has no legal meaning of any substance.