Official Notice of Dispute challenges 4 candidates' NH eligibility (Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, Santorum)

The Post & Email ^ | 11/13/2015 | Robert Laity

[ScottWalkerForPresident2016]

I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a "Natural-Born Citizen" in order to be President under Article II, Sec. 1.

I am disputing the bona-fides of:

Marco Rubio - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S., however his parents were un-naturalized "permanent resident" Cuban citizens when he was born.

Ted Cruz - NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother who may have natualized as a Canadian.

Bobby Jindal - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to parents who were un-naturalized citizens of Indiaa at the time of Bobby Jindal's bitth.

Rick Santorum - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick Santorum's birth.

[Ray76]

Persons who acquire citizenship via federal statute granting citizenship to individuals born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents can lose their citizenship if they fail to fulfill statutory requirements. (see Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815)

Cruz acquired citizenship via federal statute granting citizenship to individuals born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents (Pub.L. 82–414 § 301(a)(7); 66 Stat. 236).

To retain citizenship he was required to fulfill the requirements of Pub.L. 82–414 § 301(b); 66 Stat. 236.

The retention requirements of § 301(b) where eliminated in 1978 (Pub. L. 95–432 § 1,3; 92 Stat. 1046). His citizenship is via Congressional grant, i.e. he is naturalized.

The Supreme Court is clear on this point: statutes “conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens” is naturalization (see U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649)

A natural born citizen does not need to take affirmative actions to retain citizenship nor can their citizenship be revoked, to the contrary, a natural born citizen must take affirmative actions to renounce citizenship. (see Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253).

[Ray76]

Pennsylvania enacted a reception statute January 28, 1777, to maintain continuity of order.

The United States has no such reception statute nor is there any provision in either frame of government (Articles of Confederation, Constitution of the United States) established under the Declaration of Independence.

[Ray76]

continuity of order - since the Colonial government had been dissolved.

[Tau Food]

The Supreme Court is clear on this point: statutes “conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens” is naturalization (see U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649)

Well, I do not think that there is anything that the Supreme Court can do to resolve this issue. I believe that the Constitution delegates to Electors the job of choosing the President and also provides the Electors with some standards regarding eligibility (age, natural born citizen, residency). I believe that it is the function of the Electors to choose a President who is qualified to serve. They are provided with standards to apply and entrusted with the duty to apply those standards. I do not believe that their decisions are reviewable by the Supreme Court, by either branch of the legislature, or by the President. In the event that a majority of the Electors cannot agree on a President, then the House of Representatives is to choose the President, voting by state.

[Ray76]

> the Constitution delegates to Electors the job of choosing the President

True, but ultimately irrelevant. The mode of election does not constrain the judiciary’s exclusive authority to try cases. No person is exempt from a judicial determination of ineligibility should a case be brought.

[Ray76]

Suppose a case is brought which establishes that a person had resided outside the United States thirteen years ago. This case could have involved property or have been a business dispute or something else but whatever it was, it was unrelated to Article II eligibility.

Suppose once this case is decided a case challenging Article II eligibility is brought by some other party.

Eligibility is determined by three factors:

1. the person shall "have attained to the Age of thirty five Years"
2. the person shall have "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States"
3. the person shall be a "natural born citizen"

Article II clearly states that "no person [] shall be eligible" that does not meet these tests.

Clearly the person is ineligible, therefor they "shall not be eligible to the Office of President". They can not be President. Article II does not say "shall not be a candidate for the Office of President", they "shall not be" President.

There is no restriction on the Judiciary to try the case, indeed they must.

When a person is removed - for any reason: death, disability (25th Amend.), impeachment, resignation, or ineligibility - a vacancy is created in the office, the succession process applies.

[Tau Food]

True, but ultimately irrelevant. The mode of election does not constrain the judiciary’s exclusive authority to try cases. No person is exempt from a judicial determination of ineligibility should a case be brought.

I do understand your argument. I just disagree with it. I have no difficulty with the notion that there are decisions made by constitutional actors that are not reviewable by courts.

The Sixth Amendment affords us with a right to trial by jury if we are charged with a serious crime. At the end of a trial, the judge instructs the jury and provides the jury with the law (the standards) that they are to apply in making their decision. The Constitution then entrusts the jury with the duty to apply that standard. If the jury comes back with an acquittal, the prosecutor and judge might very well wonder if the jury properly applied the standard to the facts of the case. But, neither the prosecutor nor the judge can set aside the acquittal even if they are certain that the jury failed to properly apply the standards provided to them. Now, that system might not make sense to some people because they know that juries can make errors in applying the standard or may not even understand the standard to mean what the judge or prosecutor believes the standard to mean. However, the Constitution entrusts the jury to make a, if the jury decides to acquit a defendant, that is the end of the matter.

Similarly, the Constitution entrusts Electors with the duty to choose a President. The Constitution provides some standards but entrusts the Electors with the duty to apply those standards and to choose a President who is eligible. Like any jury might decide a matter differently than you would decide the matter, the Electors might decide these questions differently than you would decide them. I can live with that. I have never believed that jurors are infallible. I have never believed that judges are infallible. I can live with the fact that Electors are not infallible.

I honestly do not know how anyone who has read and understands Roe v. Wade can convince themselves that judges will be any better than Electors at applying the natural born citizen standard when choosing a President. The folks who decided to guarantee us a right to trial by jury understood that judges do not necessarily possess any special aptitude for making important decisions. In fact, just ask any judge sometime. If he is honest with you, he will have plenty of tales to share with you.

No court in this country has ever disqualified any candidate for President and no court has ever claimed that it possesses the power to do so. I do not believe that the courts want any part of these decisions.

[Tau Food]

There is no restriction on the Judiciary to try the case, indeed they must.

I do understand your argument. I just disagree with it.

I believe a court under those circumstances would explain to the parties that the Constitution commits to Electors the function of choosing a President and that their argument should be directed to the Electors and to the voters who elect the Electors. I think that it would be a very simple case. Just read the Constitution to find out who chooses presidents.

I recognize that there are people who believe that there exists some fundamental problem with any system that entrusts to someone other than a judge a final determination of an important issue. But, I think most judges would have no difficulty with that notion.

Obviously, you and I cannot resolve this question. Maybe someday soon someone will somehow force a judge to decide whether he thinks he has the powers you are claiming for him. I predict that he or she will look for a way to avoid even answering the question and if he or she is somehow forced to answer the question, I am almost certain that he or she will find a way to decline to disqualify any candidate for president.

[Ray76]

> I do not believe that the courts want any part of these decisions.

They may not want it but they have it. They swore an Oath to it.

[Ray76]

> I believe a court under those circumstances would explain to the parties that the Constitution commits to Electors the function of choosing a President and that their argument should be directed to the Electors and to the voters who elect the Electors.

Electors are part of the electoral process, they are not in any way part of the judicial process. The judicial process applies at all times, before as well as after, election.

[Hoodat]

If the GOP had any sense, they wouldn’t even hold a primary in New Hampshire. First GOP primary should be held in Oklahoma.

[Ray76]

> the powers you are claiming for him

Those powers are his by the Constitution.

[Tau Food]

Just before the matter is submitted to the jury, the prosecutor argues to the judge (outside the presence of the jury):

"But, judge, there is no reason for us to have to argue this case to the jury or for the jury to decide it. As you know, we submitted as evidence a film of the defendant confessing that he committed each element of the crime with which he is charged. He admitted that he is guilty. He has never even challenged the validity of the film. He is clearly guilty. We all know it. There is no need for argument and there is no need for a jury to waste its time deliberating. The court should just find him guilty so that we can get on with your sentencing. Why must we waste our time?"

The judge will then explain to the prosecutor something like this:

"The Sixth Amendment affords all of us a right to trial by jury. The Constitution commits to the jury and to the jury alone the decision as to guilt or innocence. I am just the judge. I have no power to substitute my judgment for the judgment of this jury. This is a question for the jury. If they choose to acquit this defendant, he is going home tonight."

Very reasonable people could agree with this prosecutor. Are we not risking the possibility that this jury will make the wrong decision and acquit this defendant? Why must we take this crazy risk that a crazy jury will not follow the instructions of the court? They might apply the standards incorrectly.

We take that risk because the Constitution requires that we take that risk. The Constitution requires that the jury and only the jury decide this question of guilt. Similarly, the Constitution requires that the Electors choose the President. Somebody has to make the decision and under our Constitution that job is assigned to the Electors.

That is the way I see it and I believe that the courts (particularly in the last eight years) have made it clear that they neither have nor want any role to play in reviewing the qualifications of candidates.

[Ray76]

The Supreme Court would decide the case.

[Tau Food]

The Supreme Court would decide the case.

Well, I guess you can always count on Chief Justice Roberts to do the right thing. i think his last official act regarding presidential eligibility questions was when he volunteered to administer the oath of office (for the third time) to Obama. ;-)

I have lived long enough to know that our Supreme Court can surprise us and they have surprised me before. It is possible that you will prove to be right. We will just have to wait and see.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've read your post. My normal inclination is to respond to every point, but then the most important point will get lost in the forest of other points, so I will concentrate on one.

There is no birth on the soil (jus soli) English Statute. There is only an English Father (jus sanguinus) Statute.

The English "common law" is the unwritten law. There is no English law statute asserting that birth on the soil makes you a citizen because it is part of the common law.

Now I will let that sink in for you a bit before I elaborate further.

[DiogenesLamp]

The law says that any person born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a citizen at birth. Wouldn't that include children born here of citizen parents?

Well of course it would... after 1868. But how do you explain all those people who were citizens before 1868?

It must have been horrible for them living their lives without a written law telling them they were US citizens!

[DiogenesLamp]

At one time, it was widely believed that the law of nature dictated that the sun revolved around the earth. Man’s understanding of the law of nature regarding the workings of the solar system has changed.

You merely point out an absence of facts relating to natural law. Once people had accurate facts, they corrected their errors. This guy helped a lot.

While we are on the topic, there is a distinct difference in what is regarded as "natural law" based on your foundational premise of government.

If you follow the Monarchist version of natural law, it leads to certain conclusions... mainly that the King Owns you.

If you follow the American version of natural law, you own yourself. In other words, you have the right to leave a country you don't like, and become a member of a country you do like.

Under the English version of natural law, you do not. From their foundational assumption that the King rules by divine right, that the King is the Servant of God and reigns on Earth because it is God's will, it is a rational conclusion that your owe perpetual allegiance to the King, and that if you are born on his land, you are his servant.

If your foundational assumption does not rely on rule by Divine Right, then you can rationally conclude that Individuals are not feudally bound to their liege Lord, and can exercise their own natural rights, first among them being the right to live. Others include the right to go where you will and do what you wish.

Not being bound to the land means your character is determined by your nature, (inheritance, both genetic and otherwise) rather than by who owns the land you stand upon. You inherit your father's national character, in the same manner you inherit his name.

[okie01]

The law says that any person born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a citizen at birth.

The actual text of the 14th Amendment...

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.

At the time of drafting, the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant something quite different than it has come to mean today. Essentially, people who were in the USA illegally were not considered under the jurisdiction the USA, they were considered under the jurisdiction of their native country and, if caught in the USA illegally, would be deported therefrom to the country of their proper jurisdiction.

The two legislators primarily responsible or drafting the amendment made this quite clear in their correspondence and official remarks.

However, somewhere along the way, nobody knows exactly when or where (according to a Claremont professor who is expert in the 14th and appeared on the Mark Levin show), the State Department started recognizing such births an issuing passports.

Thus, acoording to the original intent of the 14th Amendment, anybody who is born on US soil of parents legally in the USA is eligible for US citizenship.

[DoodleDawg]

Essentially, people who were in the USA illegally were not considered under the jurisdiction the USA, they were considered under the jurisdiction of their native country and, if caught in the USA illegally, would be deported therefrom to the country of their proper jurisdiction.

In 1868 how did you determine if someone was in the country legally or illegally?