Broward judge to hear case on whether Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are 'natural born citizens'

Tampa Bay Times ^ | Mar 3, 2016 | Amy Sherman

[Ray76]

A case challenging the eligibility of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to run for president will be heard in Broward County court at 11 a.m. Friday.

[Ray76]

Voeltz's Opposition to Cruz's Motion to Dismiss

Filings for Broward County Case Number: CACE15022044
http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Web2/CaseSearch/Details/?caseid=ODM2MDkxNg%3d%3d-6lO5zffc5bA%3d&caseNum=CACE15022044&category=CV

[Liz]

Cruz/s big problem is his Canadian citizenry. So sit back, relax, and enjoy Cruz/s Slippery Shuffle....as he twitches and turns to escape from this one.

<><> If Cruz/s parents declared US citizenship for him in Canada, then he has a Canadian-issued document called a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.....the legal equivalent of a US Birth Certificate.

<><> Cruz either has one from the time of his Canadian birth or he does not. If he does not, then he is NOT a US Citizen.... (he was never naturalized by his own admission).

More importantly, Canada at the time of Cruz/s birth did not recognize dual nationality. So it appears Harvard-educated Cruz schemed to dupe Texas voters by the charade of renouncing his Canadian citizenship that never was when the Dallas Morning News exposed him.

Cruz either has the Canadian-issued Consular Report of Birth Abroad, which is his legal proof of US Citizenship, or he doesn't. Would appear his parents never applied for it....making Cruz a bonafide Canadian.

Significantly, Canada prohibited dual nationality at the time of Cruz/s birth. If Cruz can/t produce a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, there's a little problem with the US Senate office Cruz holds now (and was elected to under false pretenses) .......not to mention his doomed aspirations to be US President.

==========================================

The Dems have access to the CRBA thru State archives and you can rest assured they know the truth and have set a trap.

That is why Cruz supposedly sealed his US birth documents. They don/t exist.

Cruz is putting us thru this fiasco for his personal career advancement. Nothing more. If he really cared about us, or this country, he would have settled this years ago.

======================================

He/s lining his pockets with campaign contributions, borrowing campaign money from Goldma Sachs, knowing he is not qualified? What does that say about his character and integrity?

This could also amount to mail fraud if donations are being solicited under false pretenses.

[Yosemitest]

Since's Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump's mother Mary was born in Scotland,

DO YOU BELIEVE that Trump is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen" ?

... Donald's Certificate of Birth Registration for New York City ... shows he was born to Fred C. Trump and Mary McLeod on June 14, 1946.
It is signed by the same doctor from Jamaica Hospital.

... Mary as a housewife who was born in Scotland.

[Liz]

Cruz should be asked under oath who his favorite hockey team is.....
and who he roots for when an American team plays a Canadian team.

[Liz]

Inane suppositions......can/t be discussed on an intellectual level.

[Yosemitest]

As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...

As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

" ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.


Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

NOTE: nonjusticiable political question

Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
One scholar explained:
The political question doctrine holds
that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
- - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
A court can only decide issues based on law.
The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
The court will not engage in political disputes.

A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
of a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.

Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?

"Naturalize" !
"admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Related: Naturalizing.

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond 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: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

READ IT VERY CLOSELY.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

... Citizenship is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 2,
Article 1, Section 3,
Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1,
and in the 14th Amendment
and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation in
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment;
the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4,
also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


• Anyone born inside the United States *
  * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  
• A final, historical condition:
  a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as
Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402),
Alaska (8 USC 1404),
Hawaii (8 USC 1405),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406),
and Guam (8 USC 1407).
Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

(Continued)

[Arm_Bears]

Ah, yes.

Broward County.

Where DemocRATS are to stupid to vote properly.

[mylife]

How many courts have already thrown this out?

[Yosemitest]

Your HYPOCRISY has been EXPOSED !

[2ndDivisionVet]

Yawn.

[DannyTN]

Good.

Ted just got the Illinois lawsuit dismissed on a technicality. It apparently wasn't served to the Board of Elections properly.

Cruz is trying to do the same thing with the New York lawsuit. There is just a 3 day window in NY to file an eligibility challenge after a candidate registers. And the plantiffs filed after 3 weeks.

I hate that these challenges are all dismissed on technical grounds instead of merits. And I don't want to vote for someone who is winning on process instead of merits. And certainly not for someone who is trying to claim they will be the defender of the Constitution. It's Obama all over again.

[iontheball]

Geez, another citizen suit in a county court. Wrong plaintiffs and wrong court. I’m a birther, but this doesn’t cut it.

[Liz]

Gag.

[Ray76]

Fred Trump was born on October 11, 1905 in New York City

Mary MacLeod was born on May 10, 1912 in Scotland.

Fred Trump was a US citizen, Mary MacLeod became a citizen when she married him in 1936.

Trump was born on June 14, 1946 in New York to U.S. citizen parents.

[grey_whiskers]

That’s the great thing about America. It’s the kind of place where absolutely anyone, no matter how humble their beginnings, no matter where they were born, can immigrate here and become President...

[PapaBear3625]

Mary as a housewife who was born in Scotland

And she became a US citizen in 1942, four years before Donald was born.

Donald is thus the US-born son of two American citizens.

[silverleaf]

Your would think he would want to get a ruling in this BEFORE becoming a nominee

He is running out of time

The democrats will pursue this in the most efficient and brutal way after he becomes a nominee

[DannyTN]

Yeah. I’m surprised the GOPe hasn’t pursued this to take Cruz out. They either must think the continuing controversy will hurt him, or it’s too politically incorrect for them to touch.

[John Valentine]

You have some nerve complaining about someone else posting inane suppositions.

Your entire thread is just that and worse; inaccurate, false, ignorant and misleading fabrication and lies.

It is in fact so off-the-wall wrong headed that it would take more effort to correct than it is worth. I have engaged with other posts on this subject when there appeared to be an intellect behind the incorrect post that could be reasoned with. In your case that does not appear to be true.

All I can say is Oh My God, not this crap again.

[ZULU]

Cruz and Rubio are natural born citizens. Stop this idiotic sideshow. The courts have already spokrn. Google it.