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 ...
So what is the naturalization process? Is there only one process? What defines this process?
Exactly, and the same mindset sits all across the US on benches wearing black robes. They play like they are the gods of the Greeks... have no problem lying because they got a license..
So what is the naturalization process? Is there only one? What defines this process?
But first they probably would have asked him if he intended to give up his US passport.
This is all about nothing, …and Cruz is not my first choice.
IF the shoe was on the other foot, and it was Trump - you can bet the Cruzbots would be singing a different tune.
The only "statutes" Congress can enact are statutes dealing with naturalization (the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen) as is plainly stated in the Constitution.
An Act of Congress simply can't make someone a natural born citizen as they aren't empowered to do that.
No reason to be snarky, dude. If he loses, appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary and then no one can mess with that decision.
Unless they ask, Canada has no way of knowing if Cruz ever claimed his US citizenship. His parents had as much of a claim to Ted being a citizen of Cuba (one citizen parent, birth abroad - Cuba's law is similar to US), as they did to claim him being a US citizen.
All Cruz would have had to submit for a Canadian passport is his Canada BC and maybe (but I think not) some evidence (affidavit) he never renounced his citizenship.
The first part of establishing a rule for naturalization is to identify who is required to be naturalized and who is not. If you are not required to be naturalized because you are a citizen at birth, you are a "natural born citizen".
Your problem is that there are just as many opposite findings and interpretations on this. It’s a controversy and needs to be resolved. I for one think that Cruz is eligible to be president but it’s a problem for him and I think he should resolve it in court.
The application process is not complicated but does require certain residency requirements as well as educational criteria and a sworn oath to the US.
Even quoting the wrong statute. That correct one is the one that was in effect prior to 1986. In that, the requirement was prior to the birth of such person, the mother was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen.
Given how corrupt the State of Illinois is (I live here, I KNOW!) saying Cruz is a natural born citizen isn’t saying much, ROFL!!!
BTW, when I saw your reply, I thought you were talking about Cruz. You do know he was a clerk who researched and wrote opinions for Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, right?
.........................................................
So????????????????????? Does he have a halo and wings because he worked for Rehnquist? A clerk is a clerk. A Billionaire who has made his way in the REAL WORLD is so far beyond a lawyer politician who is looking to spend his life on the government teat itnis not even funny. We need a problem solver who can think outside the biox not just more of the same old, same old BS!
Cruz is not eligible per the Constitution. Just because a board of elections says he’s eligible does not make it so.
” citizen at birth, you are a “natural born citizen”. “
If these two were the same, you wouldn’t keep writing them separately... a faux pas??
What Supreme Court Precedent? It's been my understanding for weeks now that the USSC has NEVER ruled on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.
The Law of Nations by E. Vattel 1758 clearly states a Natural Born Citizen is one born on the soil of two citizen parents. Anyone else is just a citizen. The reliance on the Law of Nations by the Framers is undisputed. Article I, Section 8 establishes the Law of Nations is IN the Constitution. Article II, Section 1, Cluse 5 establishes Natural Born Citizen as a requirement for the prsidency.
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.