Posted on 02/02/2016 4:36:59 PM PST by 11th Commandment
On the same day he won the Republican Iowa caucus, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas got a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which ruled that he met the citizenship criteria to appear on the state's primary ballot.
Two objectors, Lawrence Joyce and William Graham, had challenged Cruz's presidential bid with the board, contending that his name should not appear on the March 15 ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the Constitution.
In response to the filings, Cruz's lawyers relied on Supreme Court precedent, legal history and articles from noted constitutional scholars to defend the view that he is in fact "natural born" within the meaning in the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Zero.
Cruz is as natural born as the Crown Prince of Jordon...in other words he isn't
Thanks.
Rummy Chick needs to read a little more slowly...
Natural born means to be born on US soil of two get that two citizen parents. No I am NOT a lawyer dissembling the US Constitution.
Really which Presidents weren’t natural born? You can exclude the founding fathers and anyone who was a citizen of the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution. They are eligible via the Constitution. Please name two.
Here are the reports from the Illinois heaaring officer.
http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/AboutTheBoard/PDF/02_01_16SOEBAgenda.pdf
I am shocked that you are a lawyer.that immigration statute does not require that the 5 years directly precede the birth. Only that there be 5 years.
“Natural born means to be born on US soil of two get that two citizen parents. No I am NOT a lawyer dissembling the US Constitution.”
Well, you’re definitely not a lawyer.
Poor birthers are crying in their beer.
Is there a birther ping list?
Please red the link in my post 197 which begins,
§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
See (g)
No the ones who have attempted to complicate the issue are the ones that get a license to practice law and then proceed to dissemble the Constitution.
Where in the Constitutional requirements to hold the office does it say revised and extended or site some court precedence. My Constitution has not had the wording changed to reference that some act of Congress or some court changed the meaning of 'natural born'.
Why are you citing a naturalization law as the basis of citizenship of a person who you claim was never naturalized?
In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), Mr. Bellei was a US citizen who was born in Italy. His mother was a US citizen, his father was Italian.
Mr. Cruz and Mr. Bellei have identical birth circumstance for purposes of analysis, although Mr. Bellie's father never resided in the US - totally irrelevant factoid, but it is a potential difference in a different case.
Citizenship granted to Mr. Cruz and Mr. Bellei arises under slightly different statutes. As noted in opening, Mr. Bellei was a US citizen, as is Mr. Cruz. Under the Act of Congress that applied to Bellei, he had to reside in the US for certain number of years before he reached a certain age. It was a further condition, to maintain the US citizenship that he obtained at birth.
Mr. Bellei did not satisfy the conditions enumerated in the act of Congress, which created the issue that lead to the case. Mr. Bellei lost his citizenship, and sued to get it back.
If Bellei had been an NBC, his citizenship would not be subject to an Act of Congress, and could not have been stripped. The case would not exist.
The case was decided 5-4, turning on the meaning of "in", in the 14th amendment phrase "born or naturalized in the United States." Obviously, Bellei was not born in the US.
The majority said that Bellei was naturalized in Italy, not in the US. And so, it was not unconstitutional to strip him of his citizenship. The dissent felt this literal reading was wring, and "in the United states" should be read as "anywhere in the world."
The case is loaded with historical reference and at one point literally says "Bellei, as a naturalized American ..."
Don't take my word for it. I linked the case above. Correct me where I am wrong, or admit this is the was SCOTUS views citizenship acquired solely by operation of an Act of Congress.
Brief Summary of Rogers v. Bellei: 01/16/2016 6:14:49 PM
After their parents filled out the consular form and the Consulate or State Department confirmed they met the requirements to be awarded US citizenship.
I guess I missed the ‘natural born’ citizens...
A highly intelligent man who has the skill set to start solving the nations problems. He has a track record very admirable and he is NOT a politician.
Thank God some “legal entity “ has stepped forward to quash all that whining.
I never claimed to be. But I sure know when one lies!!!
>>Sorry, but he is Not a “Natural Born citizen’.<<
Sorry too. But since he did not need to go through a naturalization process, that means he is a “Natural Born Citizen.”
Sen Cruz never had a Canadian passort so meets the Constitutional and statutory requirements for US president. Any discussion otherwise is slovenly thinking.
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.