Posted on 03/20/2016 11:46:56 AM PDT by conservativejoy
With all of the non-stop coverage of the 2016 presidential election, have you noticed as of late that Donald Trump has not said a peep about Ted Cruz not being eligible for the presidency? Earlier this year, Trump questioned whether Cruz was a natural born citizen because he was born in Calgary, Canada (to a U.S. citizen mother). Trump asserted this very question would be caught up in the court for years. Much editorial space was spent on major newspaper and TV networks discussing this issue. Many legal scholars even agreed that Trump may have a case against Cruz.
This weekend, it occurred to me, this issue has faded from the public eye. The major media outlets stopped talking about it (maybe because Trump has moved on to other things.) But, it remains an important and largely unresolved question. So, I decided to look through some of the filings in the lawsuits filed against Cruz, and discovered an opinion from a Pennsylvania Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini that gives an absolute smack down to all of these Ted Cruz birther claims. Judge Pellegrini in his 22 page memorandum opinion found that Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen thereby ruling that Cruz’s name can appear on the Republican primary ballot in Pennsylvania on April 26, 2016. Why this particular opinion piqued my interest is that it is the first I have seen anywhere that actually tackles the Constitutional questions surrounding Cruz’s eligibility. For example, cases in Utah and Florida, were recently dismissed on procedural technicalities (like standing). What is even more shocking - the opinion was issued last week - and I couldn't find any major network or newspaper covering it. (WSJ had a short blog post, and a few local newspapers covered it in PA). You would think that on the heels of such extensive coverage of the issue earlier this year, that the media would jump all over the first major opinion to addresses these important Constitutional questions that Trump brought up during the campaign. I guess, that's wishful thinking, but I will go through the opinion, anyway, as I think its illustrative of what will be found if/when this question is appealed to an even higher court, perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court.
The heart of the question stems from Article II, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution which requires that a President be a "natural born" citizen. The challenge was filed by Carmon Elliot, a registered Republican in Pennsylvania. Elliot claimed Cruz should not be allowed to appear in the ballot because he is not a "natural born citizen."
Firstly, Cruz's attorneys argued that the Court should not address this issue at all because it is a "political question" that should not be addressed by the Judiciary. The judge found "no Constitutional provision places such power in Congress to determine Presidential eligibility." Bottom line (and this is important), the judge found that the courts can move forward with deciding the case.
So how did Judge Pellegrino of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania arrive at his decision that Cruz was eligible?
The judge relies on several pieces on legal scholarship. First, a memo produced in 1968 by Charles Gordon, then the General Counsel of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, which says: "The Framers were well aware of the need to assure full citizenship rights to the children born to American citizens in foreign countries." He also points out a 2011 Congressional Research Service Memo entitled the "Qualification for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement." The document concludes:
"The weight of legal and historical authority indicated that the term 'natural born' citizen would mean a person, who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth' either by being born 'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents."
Then the judge spends four pages quoting from the recent work of Paul Clement & Neal Katyal in the Harvard Law Review, in which the two Constitutional scholars (from different sides of the political aisle) conclude that "as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth."
In his conclusion, the Judge states:
Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in the opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a "natural born citizen" included any person who is a United States citizen from birth.Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States..
The judge's decision is ripe for a higher court review, but it is significant nonetheless. As election law expert Dan Tokaji points out in the Election Law Blog this case could ultimately be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
"A state court ruling would be helpful, but only a Supreme Court ruling could dispel the uncertainty surrounding its meaning. The good news is that review of a state court decision on Cruz's eligibility could be sought in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review federal law questions is broader than that of lower federal courts," he wrote.
So perhaps, one thing Trump said is correct that this question could end being caught up in the courts for some time. The petitioner, Mr. Elliot, already said he plans to appeal the Judge’s decision.
Cruz is not a NBC. Never will be. Even he said he wasn’t not too long ago.
What changed?
In all fairness, Trump didn’t bring this up. Fox news did in 2013. Trump repeated the claim. For every article claiming Cruz is natural born, there is another disputing the fact. The question of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen or the definition of natural born citizen is still undefined.
Judges don’t impress me.
Why hasn’t Cruz brought this up?
It’s a shame that our candidates are not vetted properly prior to the election cycle. Then we wouldn’t have to waste time on such silliness and could concentrate on real issues.
Its not October yet, hes still useful to the uni-party to stop Trump.
Nonsense. Trump talked about Cruz being ineligible in Utah and again in Arizona.
On Judge Pellegrini's Opinion that Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen
Judges are bull gears in the corrupt machine.
You think lawyers suck, judges are the CEOs of Suck Inc.
As someone who doesn’t like Donald Trump, I think Mr. Trump is right in this regard (he may not have even brought this suit). So why do I support Ted Cruz? Because this issue was raised with Barack Hussein Obama who is also not a natural born citizen and it was also rejected by the courts. The lib/commies cannot claim that we must ignore the Constitution when an issue concerns their man, yet switch completely and say it applies when it is someone they don’t like. The courts appear to realize the rank hypocrisy in this and are deciding not to be hypocrites. We have no Constitution now and only Ted Cruz — warts and all — can restore a semblance of one.
You know what else no one covers?
The fact that if Ted Cruz were to get elected, he’d be the first President we’ve ever had that was born of a foreign nation.
Like, really and truly born in another country, foreign birth certificate and all.
I think that would be a pretty remarkable moving of the goal posts. Keep in mind, Ted Cruz OPENLY ADMITS TO having a birth circumstance that many “consistent conservatives” tried desperately to prove was applicable to Obama, because Obama being born in Kenya would have made him ineligible.
But somehow, the circumstances of Cruz’s birth are no problem? It doesn’t add up for me. I don’t want future Presidents to be able to come from Saudi Arabia or Cuba.
I’m very much against the loosening of the historically mandatory tradition of the President actually being born in this country, or at the very least, on a base or US controlled territory (by two AMERICAN parents).
"Your honor."
I gather ted Cruz’s US Birth Certificate, and his other US government docs, never went to the “discovery” phase.
For a smart guy, Cruz makes dumb decisions.
Cruz could spend $10.00 at kinkos/staples (Mitt should get him the ex employee discount) and make copies of his US Birth certificate.
But no, Cruz opts to spend $100,000 (??) to defend himself against all of these lawsuits!
Every article on the planet is of less importance than a judge's decision.
It may not be defined to your satisfaction, but it is defined. A natural born citizen is one whose claim to citizenship derives naturally from the circumstances of his or her birth so that there is a natural and abiding connection between the child and the society and nation into which he or she is born.
But what about us? Shouldn’t we right a wrong? Or are we hypocrites?
Why don’t they address his dual citizenship?
Reviewing articles is not reviewing law and precedent.
That will be news to George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and William Henry Harrison, all of whom were born British subjects.
But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of a discussion. Neither Trump nor any of his followers ever do.
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.