Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

Huffington Post ^ | 02/02/2016 06:37 pm ET | Cristian Farias

[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.

[WhiskeyX]

“I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. He was not, “naturalized” he was a citizen at birth, by definition, according to the law at the time and circumstance of his birth (natural citizenship).”

Natural born citizens are citizens by birth, not at birth. Naturalized at birth citizens are citizens at birth, because the statutory law allows the parent and/or child to elect at a point in time after birth whether or not to adopt and perfect the right to acquire U.S. citizenship applied to a point in time at birth. Naturalized U.S. citizens voluntarily acquire U.S. citizenships, whereas natural born citizens of the U.S. acquire that citizenship involuntarily by birth.

[Cboldt]

On the subject of "jurisdiction stripping," the courts will look behind the Act of Congress, and may or may not abide by it. see Thomas v. Lynch - 5th Circuit - August 7, 2015 - 14-60297, Part II, for application in a citizenship case.

The same principle of peeking behind the statute and finding jurisdiction under the constitution applies if the issue is abortion and homo-marriage, which SCOTUS has sua sponte declared to be 14th amendment issues. IIRC, similar "jurisdiction stripping" arguments were advanced by Bush in the enemy combatant and terrorist-court cases (e.g., Hamdi). The courts took and decided the cases anyway.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

I am not even slightly surprised. I see the same fallacy reasoning repeated in these threads. Much ignorance out there.

You've been researching this issue for quite awhile too. Within this last year, I came up with a theory that the usage of the word "citizen" betrays it's origins and meaning.

The default term in 1776 was "subject." The founders deliberately tossed this well known and well used term in favor of this relatively new "citizen" thing.

Where did they get the idea to start calling themselves "citizens"? If you read Shakespeare or Blackstone, you find the term used to describe the inhabitants of a city. "Denizens" of a City. "City-Zens."

The usage of the word to describe member of a large nation does not appear to be common place in 1776. The word "citizen" is however used in a very influential treatise of that period.

Chapter 19, Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"

"Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."

I am thinking that the word "citizen" is itself proof that the origin of it's usage by our nation is Vattel.

Again, the normal and usual word up till that time was "subject." Using the word "citizen" appears to be an inspiration, and a deliberate break from the character of a "subject."

[DiogenesLamp]

You best get use to it.

I have long become used to the legal system making a botch out of everything they attempt to address. What is becoming increasingly rare is when they get anything right.

Different lawyers but almost word for word the same. My guess is it will be a winning argument wherever he needs to present it.

Yes, it's institutionalized "tu quoque", otherwise known as "precedent" in legal circles.

Get the first one to make a decision, and right or wrong, the other benches will fly in formation.

Dumb as a flock of birds, they are. :)

[poconopundit]

...What you are witnessing is the subversion and overthrow of the Constitution.

Well said, indeed, Mr. WhiskeyX.

I started reading this thread pretty late, but I notice that the people questioning Cruz's Constitutional qualifications are the ones actually citing the Constitution and speaking with authority about the law.

Those opposed are not really citing the law, but are telling us about their feelings or personal interpretation of what naturalization and NBC mean.

Regardless, this Canadian issue is not going away.   And the closer Cruz gets to winning the nomination, the more trouble it will bring because people are justifiably concerned that he may not actually be allowed to take Office.

One thing we can agree on is that the issue should have been settled long ahead of time.

And the cause of this failure is either: Cruz's forgetfulness, his negligence, or simply someone else's stupidity or dirty tricks.

Regardless, Cruz is now the Ancient Mariner:

Instead of the cross, the Albatross, about my neck was hung.

Rime of the Ancient Mariner
Samuel Coleridge
Engraving Artist: Gustave Dore

[Cboldt]

I see Vattel as an academic, like Blackstone and Tucker, and in today's terms, like the authors of the various "Restatement of Law" tomes. Learned observers, not directly creators of law (although some jurisdictions adopt "restatement" principles as their operative law).

The constitution says what it says - it was thoughtfully composed. One can look to the Articles of Confederation as the direct predecessor. Citizenship in the union followed citizenship in the states, and under the constitution, states were precluded from naturalizing people into the union - that was left for Congress.

I think you are right on the history or usage of the word "citizens." The founders inverted the power pyramid, and "subjects" would have been anathema to them. The subjects became the king, and the king was subservient to the subjects.

[Joachim]

The Constitution specifically enumerates Congress with the authority to set the rules of naturalization. That includes who does and does not need to be naturalized.

Does this mean the Constitution gives Congress power to pass a law requiring that absolutely everyone has to be naturalized?

[RginTN]

Suggest you take it down a notch or two. Cboldt is very well versed, and a voice of reason on this very subject..you will learn from his posts, believe me.

---

really? the response to me shows no evidence of that

[kiryandil]

The Media DeathStar hasn’t ruled yet. :)

[RginTN]

I want nothing to do with you, and prefer that you want nothing to do with me, either.

---

you resonded to my post. Don’t like what I posted then pass on by it.

[GBA]

Sad but true.

How do you reconcile that it's America's constitution-lovin' Conservatives who are leading this effort?

And that it is the Republican party that now fields two ineligible candidates, each an anchor baby, but of different countries?

It's all rather masterfully done in an insane, end of times sort of way.

[The Iceman Cometh]

So now Trump was only trying to help Cruz?

Who knows what rattles around in that brain of his.

I facepalm many times when listening to him.

Maybe I've listened to him too much.

Saw his New Hampshire speech tonight. He needs to freshen his schtick. Getting old.

[NKP_Vet]

Cruz has still showed no documentation proving he’s a citizen of the United States. Not a thing. He has no birth certificate other than a Canadian birth certificate and no type of papers because he apparently didn’t think he needed anything to ever prove he’s an American citizen. I guess he went to Princeton and Harvard and told them he was a Canadian. Showed his birth certificate. His records are sealed for a reason. Wonder what he showed when he got drivers license. Most state require a birth certificate. Except for Cruz, he’s special. No one has ever asked to see anything that proves he’s a citizen of the US.

[xzins]

Congress hasn’t defined it either

[bushpilot2]

Voeltz v Cruz Motion to Dismiss on Scribd. https://www.scribd.com/book/297538440

[Yaelle]

I agree Cruz is natural born, but if you rely on precedent, ANYONE can be President. There is no legit written evidence that Barack Obama was ever even a citizen of the United States until a passport was conferred on him by the US Senate. So Putin is eligible, if we rely on president.

[sneakers]

bttt

[Cboldt]

-- you resonded to my post. Don't like what I posted then pass on by it. --

I will from now on. I presumed you were capable of using reason to defend your point of view, but in our exchange I learned that you are unable, unwilling, or both. Hence the animosity on my part.

[Yosemitest]

I ask someone before, "What was the first year that the FS-240 were require/issued at the time of birth?"
Cboldt answered:

... the answer was prefaced with a note that the form isn't and wasn't "required" in order for citizenship to attach.

[cynwoody]

Sorry, but he is Not a “Natural Born citizen’.

Sorry, but he has my vote!