Trump supporters file 'birther' lawsuit against Cruz in federal court

The Hill ^ | 02/12/2016 | Bradford Richardson

[Ray76]

Cruz is a citizen by statute, not by birth. For much of U.S. history the statutes did not make him a citizen.

[fireman15]

You apparently do not read the stuff that I cut and paste thoroughly, because those FACTS PROVE THOROUGHLY, that TED CRUZ IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !

I have spent a lot of time reading what you have posted; I just don't agree with your conclusion. Ted Cruz may or may not be found to be a Natural Born Citizen. I am not a legal scholar and I don't believe that you are either. Legal scholars have come down on both sides of this issue.

When I was in school we were taught that the Natural Born Citizen requirement for president was to help make sure that someone with divided loyalties did not hold the office. The way you interpret Natural Born Citizen... the children of a woman who married an ISIS member and then grew up in Iran taught to hate America would be eligible to be our president if he could talk a good game when he was old enough to hold the office.

When my wife was in high school a star football player from a rival district moved into her school district and wanted to play football. The coaching staff wouldn't let him on the team because they were worried he would have divided loyalties when playing against the other school. I suppose these days someone would get sued, but back then no one questioned the decision.

[Springfield Reformer]

I think the crux of the issue, as seen by the founders, was undivided loyalty to the United States. (here)

At least we agree about this. I am genuinely sorry you appear to feel you have to make comments about me behind my back. I'm an easy to get along with person. You can even tell me I'm wrong and stupid and I won't get mad at you or hold you in contempt. I try to live by the proverb that says a wise man will love you for a rebuke.

As for Bellei, I appreciated your challenge, because it made me look at the decision more closely than ever before.  If I have come up with a different conclusion than you, I came by it honestly. I'm telling you what I really believe about it. I believe it is anachronistic to think the founders had any intention of restricting themselves from commenting on or regulating any aspect of citizenship, be it natural born, naturalized, or any other variety, simply because they embodied those thoughts in the naturalization acts. I believed they used the term "naturalization" very broadly, and those statutes were the natural place to discuss any and all citizenship-related topics.  It was only under the evolution of later case law that the categories of citizenship law became more confused.  

In fact, the categories here are a fascinating study in set theory. We have people who should be treating each other like family who instead are at each other's throats because we are all looking at this complex Venn diagram and coming up with different answers.  In an answer to you I never posted, I actually tried to map out the sets involved.  It got too complicated for a readable answer.

So I guess there really is no easy answer. Speaking of that, I checked out your wayback machine. You appear to use a lot of the same legal websites I do. My answer above you found so absurd was a direct result of researching at Balkin's blog, combined with a very long weekend of looking over every word of Bellei. You don't realize how close I was to buying into your position. It was my research at Balkinization that convinced me the locus of the case was not where you were pointing.

But here's the difference. I'm willing to believe you arrived at your position totally honestly. It's really what you believe, and you've mined the quotes you think back you up.  I'm cool with that.  I still think you're wrong, but I don't hold it against you personally.  And who knows?  If the atmosphere wasn't derision and cutthroat, we could even talk about it like adults and you might convince me you are right. But instead we devolve into these little cliques of us against them, gotta win the argument, bla bla bla. Like I said, I'm real sorry you see it that way, because it kind of kills the opportunity to learn.

But we each have to do what we think is right. I respect that.

Peace,

SR

[Yosemitest]

Hey DUMMY!
What make YOU a citizen ?

A Statue, DESCRIBING the DEFINITION of "Citizen" !

TED CRUZ is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, DESPITE you're REFUSAL to ACCEPT the LAW !

"An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":

... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view.
In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated:

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning:
namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth
with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that,
subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,
someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for president
because the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.

Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen.
They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that
“the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that
its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law,
and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States
if the American people make that choice.

One of those precepts of British law was
that children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,
even outside the dominions of the British Empire,
were “natural born” citizens of the Empire
who owed their allegiance to the Crown.
This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen.
A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born
“out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401.
It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
Paragraph (g) includes:

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 five years,
at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970;
his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time.
She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University.
These facts show that
Cruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.;
That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state,
and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico.

The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice.
The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.
Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts,
was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father.

My wife is not likely to run for president,
but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president
and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”


Hans A. von Spakovsky is a a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department lawyer. 
He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”(Encounter 2012)
and  “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside 2014).

[Yosemitest]

There IS NO "not be found to be" TO IT !
THE LAW IS THE LAW !
And under THE LAW, TED CURZ IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !

Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” ....
... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.

The only definition that matters is the one GIVEN BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS.

They addressed children of citizens,
where one parent who was a citizen,
and one parent who was an immigrant who had resident in the United States for a period of time,
and the child's RIGHT to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,
EVEN IF "born beyond Sea, or OUT of the limits of the United States, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS :
Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have NEVER been RESIDENT IN the United States:"

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[Cboldt]

-- Cruz required a statute to naturalize him. --

Cruz's claim had to be adjudicated too. One could say that this is technically a court, or technically it is not, depending on how one chooses to define court. Questionable claims have been adjudicated all the way up to SCOTUS and been found invalid.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”I think you're psychotic.”

LOL, On-line diagnosis for free!

[Forty-Niner]

is a pejorative epitaph describing the tactic Obama used to circumvent the clear eligibility requirements of Article II of the Constitution. Today, even here on FR, many people think that mere birth in the US enshrines (natural born) citizenship, and therefore eligibility to hold the Office of the President. Others think mere birth to one American parent is sufficient. is the rejoinder Obama often used when answering questions about his eligibility, even though a causal reading of Article II shows that isn't enough to meet the eligibility requirements. Remembering that Article II is a restriction on the persons seeking the highest office in the land..... It..... exempts persons born before the Article was ratified from the pedigree requirement. The pedigree requirement is that the Presidential candidate must be 100% American. He must be born in the United States to American Citizen parents i.e. A Natural Born Citizen. He must have reached the maturity of at least 35 years old. He must have spent at least 14 years after reaching his majority living in the US. (21 years majority + 14 years in the US = 35 years old.) The Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the writings of Locke, Rousseau, Aquinas, De Vattel, etc. In defining the Pedigree they used a centuries old term, Natural Born Citizen, as defined and it's importance explained in De Vattel's book "Law of Nations" published in 1757. Given their recent experience with English King George III and his mixed English/German heritage, we can see how important being without question 100% American was for them. No I'm NOT a "Birther," I'm a Constitutionalist.

[Forty-Niner]

“Bye Trump.”

You spelled Cruz wrong.

[Forty-Niner]

BS fluff nonsense you keep posting that is not addressing the issue which is exclusively Article II and the NBC requirement.

The term NBC had an well known and understood meaning in the 1700’s. It was NOT coined by the founders, but a well used term.

For all intents and purposes NBC is a term defining a 100% American Heritage. It protects the U.S., you and me, from people with hidden agendas garnered by their mixed national heritage. Obama had no purely American heritage. (Dreams from my Father!!!????)

Somehow being born in Canada to a (Cuban) Canadian father was NOT what the Founders were looking for in a Chief Executive.

Fool me once, same on you....fool me twice, shame on me.......

Never again, no matter how shinny it looks.

[Forty-Niner]

“Trump is so wishy-washy “

.....and smarter than both of us put together.....

[Forty-Niner]

“with S.Res.511 that it finds foreign-born persons to be pure American, without resort to law.”

John McCain was born to 2 citizen parents that were serving the US military in foreign lands. His father was an American Admiral.

I contend that every US soldier/sailor has US soil beneath his/her boots no matter where they are. The Senate agreed.

[xrmusn]

His father was an American Admiral.

I contend that every US soldier/sailor has US soil beneath his/her boots no matter where they are. The Senate agreed.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I think the only legitimate ‘question’ in McCains case was he was born in a Panamanian Hospital, not US facility?
Of course if Cruz or Rubio get the nomination all the ‘facts/data’ that was used against BO will be brought out and enhanced by the Libs who will suddenly find merit in the same type situation while the GOPe will wring their hands and either agree with them or sign a pledge that there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with BO etc.

THEN the LIBS will put it where the sun don’t shine, GOPe will side with the LIBs to show they can get along.

SAME OLD BS.....TERM LIMITS....

Would be nice if a ‘Pres’ Trump could address ALL the pols and say ‘YOU’RE FIRED’. Or Pres Cruz etc etc.

[Forty-Niner]

The courts, with judicial cowardice, refused to hear a case brought after both the election and that person’s inauguration.

It only takes 1 member of Congress to halt the election result. No member of Congress objected to the election or to Obama’s inauguration.

The black robes refused to entertain a suit much less remove a sitting President after so many opportunities for protest were passed by.

You can be sure that the Democrats learned that lesson well and will not let any ineligible Republican candidates progress. They will instead choose the timing that results in the most damage to the Republican nomination process.

[Yosemitest]

"The term NBC had an well known and understood meaning in the 1700’s.
It was NOT coined by the founders ....
For all intents and purposes NBC is a term defining a 100% American Heritage."

I said "DEFINED', I did not say 'coined'.
That diversion from what I said, (trying to TWIST my words) doesn't work, and most people will recognize your dishonesty.



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Even the extremely LIBERAL CNN acknowledges it.

Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president
Thu January 14, 2016
(CNN)I do not embrace Ted Cruz politically, but I do embrace his right to run for president, and so should you.

Here is our first question:
Who decides whether Cruz is eligible?
My answer:
At first, you do.
We, the people, do.
We do this on Election Day when we cast our ballots with the Constitution in our hearts and minds if not in our hands.
If you think Cruz is ineligible - - if what I say here does not persuade you - - you can vote against him.

If Cruz gets enough electoral votes this fall,
then Congress
and not the Supreme Court
should be the final legal judge of Cruz's eligibility.
The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says that
Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized
to refuse to count any electoral votes that Congress considers invalid.

Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear that
each house of Congress may "judge" whether
a would-be member of that house meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says
the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here,
because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

Presidents should pick judges, not vice versa.
This is one reason why the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore was a disgrace
and is now widely viewed by experts as such.

What's the right answer?

OK, so voters and Congress decide, but
what is the right answer to the Cruz question
and how can ordinary citizens deduce this right answer?

Simple:
We can read the Constitution,
which was written for ordinary citizens.
And then we can fold in a few simple points about constitutional history, tradition and common sense.

Article II requires that a president must be either a U.S. citizen "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" - - that is, 1788 - - or else "a natural born Citizen."
Though old-fashioned, Cruz was not around in 1788.
So he needs to be - - just like everyone else running for president today - - a "natural born Citizen."

For starters, put aside the word "natural."
Ask yourself whether Cruz is a "born Citizen."
In other words, was he a citizen on the day he was born?
Was he a citizen because of his birth,
because of where and how and to whom he was born?
Note what the text does NOT say.
It does not say, Springsteen-like,
that a president must be "born in the United States."
Yet it would have been so easy to say that,
had that been the founders' legal meaning and the legal purpose !

So the question is,
was Ted Cruz born a citizen?
The Constitution says, in the 14th Amendment,
that anyone born in the United States and subject to our laws is a U.S. citizen.
Today, that means everyone born on American soil except children of foreign diplomats - - even children whose parents are not themselves U.S citizens.
Donald Trump, are you listening?

Unlike Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii - -
again, please pay attention, Donald!
- - Cruz is not a citizen at birth because of where he was born.
Cruz was born in Canada.
But neither Article II nor the 14th Amendment says that ONLY those born in the United States are birth citizens.
The 14th Amendment says that birth on American soil is sufficient to be a birth citizen.
But it is NOT necessary.

How else can a person be a citizen at birth?
Simple.
From the founding to the present, Congress has enacted laws specifying
that certain categories of foreign-born persons ARE citizens at birth.
The earliest statute, passed in 1790, explicitly called certain foreign-born children of U.S. citizens "natural born citizens."
It did not say they should be treated "as if" they were "natural born citizens."
It said they were in law deemed and declared to be "natural born citizens."
Congressional laws have changed over the years, but this 1790 law makes clear that
from the beginning, Congress by law has the power to define the outer boundaries of birth-citizenship
by conferring citizenship at birth to various persons born OUTSIDE the United States.

And here is the key point:
The statute on the books on the day Cruz was born made him a citizen on that day.

The statute conferred birth-based American citizenship on ANY foreign-born baby who had at least ONE parent who was a U.S. citizen,
so long as that parent HAD MET CERTAIN CONDITIONS of extensive prior physical presence in the United States.

On the day of his birth, Cruz's mother WAS a U.S. citizen, even though his father was not;
and his mother also apparently met the relevant rules of extensive prior physical presence.

... (Continued)

So let's READ AGAIN WHERE AND HOW OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DEFINED NATURAL BORN CITIZEN in The Naturalization Act of 1790 !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[Cboldt]

-- The Senate agreed. --

The courts do not. S.Res.511 is summarized as a naked assertion that "a natrualized citizen is a natrual born citizen." It is nonsense.

[Cboldt]

-- It only takes 1 member of Congress to halt the election result. --

It takes two, one from the House and one from the Senate, to raise an objection. At that point, the respective bodies retire to their chambers and vote. It takes a majority to uphold the objection.

-- ... the Democrats learned that lesson well and will not let any ineligible Republican candidates progress. --

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The parties are in lockstep unison on the mission of eroding national identity. I think the Courts are in on it too.

[Forty-Niner]

“I think the only legitimate ‘question’ in McCain’s case was he was born in a Panamanian Hospital, not US facility?”

Of the two the MOST important aspect of the NBC requirement is that the person is raised with a 100% American viewpoint.

With this day of worldwide air travel, it is quite simple to hopscotch around the world be essentially “Born in the USA, and raised as a Russian Communist.”

Just like Obama was......Born in the USA, still not proven, and raised as a Communist by his Kenyan (or dreams of his Kenyan) and Indonesian fathers.

Other than the actual moment of birth, McCain was raised in a 100% American environment for his entire life. (other than serving as a POW while serving as a naval officer. Lets not try to trap ourselves into defending McCain’s liberal leanings. I’ll not defend that.)

As for term limits, the Congress kinda likes them for everyone else, but NOT for themselves. Lets face it, we are being slowly enslaved by a political elite acting out a Kabuki Theater play that keeps them in power and a perpetual member of that elite. As one military man once said...”They’re well dug in and need to be well dug out!”