Posted on 01/13/2016 8:00:06 AM PST by conservativejoy
Perhaps you could identify some.
" The standing inquiry focuses on whether the party invoking jurisdiction had the requisite stake in the outcome when the suit was filed, see, e.g., Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 180, and a party facing prospective injury has standing where the threatened injury is real, immediate, and direct, see, e.g., Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102. Davis faced the requisite injury from §319(a) when he filed suit: He had already declared his candidacy and his intent to spend more than $350,000 of personal funds in the general election campaign whose onset was rapidly approaching. Section 319(a) would shortly burden his personal expenditure by allowing his opponent to receive contributions on more favorable terms, and there was no indication that his opponent would forgo that opportunity. Pp. 6-8. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/554/724.html#sthash.hJvM6HWy.dpuf."
It is also a fact that a number of opinions have indicated that standing can be established under state laws that regulate ballot access if the challenged party is empowered by those laws to contest that access and chooses to do so
Start with my post #47.
I suggest that you research just why, in a subsequent act a few short years later, the word “natural” was removed. I believe you will find if you do that it was taken out because there was a good deal of opinion that it was not constitutional to attempt to alter the Article II phrase in a statute. Nor do I think that you will find authority that what the Framers meant can be defined in a subsequent statute rather than in what can be ascertained about what was meant by the phrase at the time that the Constitution was drafted.
I am an economist. I have been recognized as an expert in my field by U.S. District Court for Western Virginia, and by Circuit Courts in five states, and have adapted my testimony to statutory and case law, and to instructions from the judge.
By that law review citing ‘no authority,” you mean other than Blackstone, Storey, the British Nationality Act of 1730 developing English law on citizenship, the Naturalization Act of 1790 passed by the First Congress of the United States.
I am surprised the authors of that piece did not cite the following Supreme Court case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
In this case the Court authoritatively ruled that there are only two categories of citizenship: (1) natural born and (2) naturalized. While the 14th Amendment grants citizenship by place of birth, the Congress had from the beginning exercised the authority to defined each of natural born and naturalized citizenship, and has been doing so ever since (except that with the 14th Amendment, the Congress has to respect that person born here subject to our laws are natural born citizens).
In particular, the Congress stipulates certain conditions for a person born overseas of American parents to be an natural born citizen. The Congress is concerned with persons born overseas of mixed citizen parents, and the Congress is concerned with persons born overseas in the second and further generations. A case involving the first problem made its way to the Supreme Court and provided an opportunity for the Court to speak at length about natural born citizenship:
“a person born abroad ‘of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States’ who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years.”
Sounds like Ted Cruz, except that Cruz clearly mets the residency requirements provided by the Congress for persons born overseas of only one U.S. citizen parent. But, the person in the case didn’t met the residency requirements.
In this long and sometimes tedious decision, the Supreme Court discusses at length differences between 14th Amendment-type citizenship (derived from place), and citizenship by lineage of persons born overseas, especially when only one of the two parents is U.S. You and I oppose dual-citizenship, and the Congress might not agree with our being against it, but at least worked in some requirement that the person establish a relationship to the U.S. so that the U.S. part of the dual citizenship is meaningful.
BTW Ted Cruz was also editor of the Harvard Law Review.
We’ll see, but you examples are pretty far fetched.
Some environmental laws are written to enable “pre-damage” standing.
There has already been a suit regarding ballot access, it got tossed. No other states have denied any of the top guys. Most Primary ballots are already set.
Trump’s only chance is to run the tables. Anything less than clear majority when its convention time, he’s toast. His message and style might work on some voters, but on very few delegates in a 2nd or subsequent ballot.
TigerClaws: If Obama is later discovered to have been born out of the United States (say, President Trump exposes this fact), what are the consequences? Do we ax Obama’s presidential pension? Are the laws he signed null and void?
This raises a very interesting possibility. Ted Cruz is a constitutional lawyer and he probably has every understanding that the NBC clause means two citizen parents. Could Cruz’s presidential bid be guided purely by the goal to expose Obama for the Constitutional fraud that we know him to be?? Perhaps this is the mechanism we use to eradicate all the wrongs that Obama has incurred for the past 8 years?
Good stuff. Really good stuff. Thanks for posting, sharing your experience and knowledge. I really appreciate people backing up their point of view with an authority. it isn’t “them” making the contention, just presenting it, maybe adding a snippet of summary or argument.
Under the rule cited, the person that has standing is the same person who has a right to contest the outcome of the election. That would be a candidate. A suit by another other person should be tossed.
Oops, nevermind, I see that is the case you were citing! Mea culpa.
It is an act of Congress, a statute, that allows Ted to claim US Citizenship. The 1934 Naturalization laws allows a US mother to pass US citizenship to her child. Ted was naturalized at birth via the 1934 law and other later statutes. A naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen requires no laws to make him a citizen. A natural born citizen is of the soil and of the blood. Born on soil to two citizen parents.
Trump mother did not retain UK citizenship. Her oath of citizenship required her to renounce her UK citizenship.
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Rogers seems definitive on the issue of a person born overseas having one U.S. citizen parent.
Some people argue what the law or even the Constitution should say. Others argue what the law or the Constitution should be interpreted as saying. But, legally, the Supreme Court has been very clear.
I have no beef with politicians who use the matter for political advantage. We’re not playing tiddlywinks. But Lawrence Tribe should be held to a different standard.
The key phrase is “outcome of the election”.
Some countries take the U.S. oath as revoking their citizenship. Not the U.K. The U.K., like the U.S., is cool with dual citizenship.
In the U.S., naturalization in another country does not end U.S. citizenship. Period.
In the U.K., the issue is discretionary. But, if the U.K. Secretary of State revokes U.K. citizenship, you can appeal. The U.K. Secretary of State did not revoke the citizenship of Donald Trump’s mother. Hence, she was a dual citizen. By lineage, so are her children. Donald Trump is a dual-citizen of the U.S. and the U.K. (this has been dormant and, so, isn’t an issue). Furthermore, because the Donald has established a meaningful tie with the U.K. via his major investment in Scotland, he has invigorated his (long dormant) U.K. citizenship, and his children could claim to be dual citizens. (The transfer of citizenship of persons born overseas only goes one generation. If your foreign-born parent doesn’t establish a relation with the home country, citizenship by lineage ends with him.) The only non-dual citizen person in the Trump household is Melania, because Slovenia is very restrictive about dual-citizenship. Donald Trump has major properties in Panama, Brazil, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, in addition to Scotland. He is a very international person, with friends, business partners and investments all over the country and all over the world, including Hispanics and Muslims. I frankly think this is all very positive.
“People with dual nationality who are British nationals can be deprived of their British citizenship if the Secretary of State is satisfied that ‘deprivation is conducive to the public good’; there is a right of appeal.”
Cruz's qualifications can be challeneged in either election, by any opponent who is allowed to challenge the outcome of the (state) election contest.
I'd like to know what label you think they attach, to Bellei. Is he natrual born, or naturalized?
I find it as obvious as the face on my nose that Bellei is considered naturalized.
What part "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;" do you not get?
The US is not cool with dual citizenship, the US Courts starting in the 60's will not allow US laws against it to be enforced. In Trumps' mom day dual citizenship was illegal. Once again liberal courts are the problem. And who gives a flip what the UK thinks? Trumps' mother renounced her UK citizenship and I will bet dollars to donuts that she traveled on a US passport not a UK passport after taking her oath of citizenship.
Thank you, Lord Chancellor. I am sorry for quoting the U.K. law on the matter when clearly written U.K. law means nothing compared to your opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.