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 ...
http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/AboutTheBoard/PDF/02_01_16SOEBAgenda.pdf
Whenever I have a question regarding a constitutional issue, I always consult an Illinois hearing officer.
We could have saved a lot of time on the "Gay Marriage" issue had we simply consulted an Illinois hearing officer first.
The Children of naturalized aliens do not have to go through a naturalization process either.
The lack of a "process" does not preclude naturalization.
For example, it cites Rogers v. Bellei as speaking to the subject of residency (of the citizen parent) precedent to the birth. That case is on the subject of residency (of the child) subsequent to birth. The piece falsely asserts that most of the categories in 8 USC 1401 are not naturalized.
It seems every attack on Cruz, according to principals in the Bible, will end with the attacker looking foolish.
I'm going to bed. Good night to all.
Cboldt, could you deal with this one? It’s being suggested that Congress could outlaw abortion and say that it’s outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary to rule on the Constitutionality of the law. Saying that if the legislative and executive branches gang up they can keep a law from ever being subject to Constitutional review by the courts. All they have to do is say it in the law, and then the courts can’t touch it.
I appreciate your vote of confidence. But ...
CA Conservative is on my "do not reply," "persona non grata" list.
Please do yourself a favor and google “jurisdiction stripping”. The fact that Congress does not use this to deal with some of the more egregious court decisions like Roe v Wade, Kelo and Obergfell is due more to a lack of political will and/or a veto from a liberal president. It is not because they lack the constitutional power to do so.
So now Trump was only trying to help Cruz?
It won’t convince them, they’ll still talk about mailers, stupid Iowans, Canada and Goldman Sachs.
Read the following and disagree with it, especially the part that says: “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952. TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization. NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH. Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . . (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic†acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
That’s understandable.
I think you are mistaken about this. If I recall properly, it was alleged that he was born in Canada, but it was not proven.
His problem was that his father was still a foreigner when he was born. (Irish, I think.)
This was only recently discovered by Leo Donofrio. He relates how he discovered this on his former blog. (you will have to read back a ways.)
Wow! This is incredible. Could we get a ruling from them on gay marriage or Obamacare?
Laughter is about the only reasonable recourse when faced with some of these kooky assertions.
You have succinctly explained why "natural born citizen" by statute is a nonsense idea.
I remember him. What an @$$.
The Illinois hearing officer did not produce a reasoned decision, just summarily asserted that no naturalization process manes not naturalized. Cruz's memorandum of law did not address the arguments presented in the complaint.
You best get use to it. Cruz’s motion to dismiss is almost identical to his motion to dismiss in Florida (Voeltz v Florida SoS). Different lawyers but almost word for word the same. My guess is it will be a winning argument wherever he needs to present it.
“Naturalization” means applying to be recognized as a US citizen after birth. If you are a citizen at birth you do not need to do this. You are a natural citizen.”
No, that is a lie the corrupt politicians have been trying to sell , especially after their numerous attempts to pass an Amendment to the Constitution removing the natural born citizen clause failed every time. It has parallels with their attempts to get rid of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. When they couldn’t amend the Constitution to remove the right to keep and bear arms, they used the courts, executive orders, and unconstitutional legislation to progressively disregard and infringe upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Likewise with the natural born citizen clause, they couldn’t get rid of it with an Amendment to the Constitution, so they are resorting to disregarding the Constitution and use unconstitutional executive actions, unconstitutional court decisions, and unconstitutional legislation to deceive people into believing the words have no actual definition and can be redefined in a way that in effect does away with the prohibition.
What makes a person a natural born citizen is birth with the child owing a duty of obedience and allegiance only to parents with the same duty of obedience and allegiance to the domestic sovereign and no other foreign sovereign. Any child born outside the jurisdiction of the sovereign United States is be definition a child born owing a duty of obedience and allegiance, whether permanent or temporary, to the foreign sovereign. Natural born citizens acquire their U.S. citizenship involuntarily, because the circumstances of their birth with two citizen parents owing a duty of obedience and allegiance to the United States and birth within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States leaves no other possible citizenship except U.S. citizenship. Every child born abroad, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, are born within the foreign jurisdiction and foreign allegiance, which makes it physically impossible for the United States to exercise exclusive jurisdiction and require an exclusive duty of obedience and allegiance to the United States. Consequently, every child born abroad can acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization, whether the naturalization is deemed by statute to be after birth and retroactive at birth or simply after birth as is the case for foreign parent and child immigrants. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court statement: “United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
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.