Posted on 03/12/2015 12:32:49 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
By the way, the Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions, EVER,
This goes back to President Washington asking the Supreme Court for advisory opinions and Chief Justice John Jay telling him, sorry, no can do.
Someone else would need to sue Ted Cruz over eligibility just like Obama has been sued and four Justices would have to agree to hear the case, unlike Obama where there haven’t been four Justices in agreement to proceed to oral arguments.
The cite doesn't support the claim - and this is acknowledged and disregarded!The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
14. ^ We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
15. ^ We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.
Pure jabberwocky
What’s next? A court citing a movie about Santa Clause? Oh - that’s right, they have.
I already did. Here they (plural) are again:
Title 8 Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 12, Subchapter III: “Nationality AND Naturalization”
The statutes in Part I cover “Nationality at Birth AND Collective Naturalization.” That includes statutes in Sections 1401 through 1409
AND THEN, in Part II there are the statutes on “Nationality Through Naturalization” which cover Sections 1421 through 1459;
AND THEN, in Part III, there are the statutes covering “Loss of Nationality” which cover Sections 1481 through 1489;
AND FINALLY, in Part IV, there are “Miscellaneous” statutes on various related issues, covering sections 1501-1504.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchapter-III
Do you know what US Code is?
You have asserted that “’naturalization statutes’ definitely do NOT confer citizenship at birth”. This has been shown to be wrong.
You can admit the error or go off on tangents to redirect and distract. You can admit the error or maintain a falsity to be truth, transmuting an error into a lie. The choice is yours.
“There has been no ruling by the Supreme Court ... Obama eligibility trial on the merits held in New Jersey”
let us know when the USSC takes a case on Obama being eligible. They denied entry to all cases based on no one had standing. There can be no ruling if no one has standing to enter a case with them.
Yes, I do.
The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.
“True; but then how many things has he gotten done because the representatives [and senators] have been all too willing to ignore the Constitution’s limits?”
I have no doubt you know my point, so I’ll just spit it out for everyone else to read: The US Constitution has all but been completely suspended. We no longer operate using it. The only thing that keeps anyone in government in line at all is public opinions to vote one way or another on any topic.
Which are passed by congress.
The Supreme Court has never heard oral arguments on any Obama eligibility challenge, therefore it has issued no rulings based on Article III standing.
Every petition for an appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court has been responded to by “Cert Denied” or “Application Denied.” Whether the issue was standing or something else, we’ll never know.
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY RULINGS
1) Anderson v. Obama (Cert* Denied)
2) Barnett, et. al. v. Obama, et. al. (Cert Denied)
3) Berg v. Obama, et. al. (Stay Denied & Cert Denied)
4) Beverly v. Federal Elections Commission (Cert Denied)
5) Craig v. United States (Cert Denied)
6) Donofrio v. Wells (Application for Stay Denied)
7) Farrar v. Obama & Kemp (App. For Stay & Cert Denied)
8) Herbert v. United States, et. al. (Cert Denied)
9) Hollister v. Soetoro (Cert Denied)
10) Kerchner, et. al. v. Obama, et. al. (Cert Denied)
11) Keyes v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Cert Denied)
12) Lightfoot v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Stay Denied)
13) Noonan v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Stay Denied)
14) Paige v. Vermont (Cert Denied)
15) Purpura v. Sibelius (Cert Denied)
16) Rhodes v. Mac Donald (Injunction & Cert Denied)
17) Schneller v. Cortes (Emergency relief & Cert Denied)
18) ex. rel. Sibley v. Obama (Cert Denied)
19) Sibley v. DC Board of Elections (Cert Denied )
20) In re: Voeltz (Cert. Denied)
21) Vogt v. Obama/In re: Vogt (Cert Denied)
22) Welden v. Obama (Cert Denied)
23) Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Application for Stay Denied)
*”Cert”= A Petition for a “Writ of Certiorari” which is a request for an appeal to be heard before the Court. It takes four Justices to agree to grant a Cert Petition, known as “The Rule of Four”.
Well if Cruz manages to make some headway towards the presidency you can bet the liberals are going to go wailing into the courts with the same thing that conservatives were alleging on Barack Obama. Barack was slippery because there was no proof of his foreign birth, only a fishy birth certificate. Congress could have made a law to cover such a situation (such as requiring proof of eligibility) but it didn’t and so left it on the honor system.
Would natural born apply to Cruz? Depends on where you are getting the definition from, no or yes. This could be popcorn worthy. I am thankful for Walker. He would be an excellent backup to Cruz.
Up to the current time, the anti-birther liberals have been supporting
Senator Cruz’s eligibility. Why? Because it backs up Obama’s eligibility.
Here’s an example: “Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-born-in-canada-and-still-become-president-of-the-us/275469/
And of course ths particular Free Republic thread is based on the writing of a liberal former Solicitor General who worked for Obama.
And signed into law by a President and may be upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
By agreeing that it’s passed by congress you show that that is the authority from which these laws derive is that of the Congress — because of this, it cannot exceed the authority of Congress, congress’s only powers over citizenship is that of a uniform rule of naturalization.
But don’t forget that any bill passed by Congress must be signed into law by a President or a veto must be overridden and any law can be challanged as unconstitutional at the Supreme Court.
Congress passing laws on nationality and the statutes defining Citizens of the United States At Birth comes under the provisions of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Section 1 of the 14th Amendment granted congress no new powers — therefore, any congressional act/statute/resolution pertaining to citizenship must be naturalization.
> the statutes defining Citizens of the United States At Birth comes under the provisions of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Naturalization Act of 1795 Sec. 3 [] the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States
Predates the 14th Amend.
In law, it is the most current statute that matters, not the oldest.
For its historic value, the Naturalization Act of 1790 predates the Naturalization Act of 1795 and the original naturalization act said: “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”.
That bolsters Senatot Cruz’s case to originalists.
> the statutes defining Citizens of the United States At Birth comes under the provisions of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
A false assertion.
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.