Posted on 03/31/2016 12:18:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed Sen. Ted Cruz’s slot on the state presidential ballot Thursday, siding with a lower-court ruling that declared the senator is a natural-born citizen.
The court turned away an appeal from Pittsburgh resident Carmon Elliott, who had sued to boot Cruz from the state’s April 26 primary. Elliott had claimed that Cruz’s birth in Canada excluded him from natural-born citizenship — a constitutional requirement for the presidency.
Cruz, who has faced multiple lawsuits on his citizenship status, was born in Canada to an American mother in 1970. He and his lawyers have argued that his mother’s citizenship made him natural born, regardless of the location of his birth.
A Commonwealth Court judge first ruled against Elliott’s lawsuit March 10, declaring that a natural-born citizen “includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.”
Elliott then appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, which issued an order Thursday denying his appeal.
At least six other lawsuits against Cruz have been dismissed, though federal cases are pending in Texas and Alabama. Most of the cases that have been tossed so far have been dismissed on procedural grounds, excepting Elliott’s original lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
We don’t know why she put her ex-husband’s name down on the birth certificate. He was also confused as to why she did that.
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/nation-world/national/article54993300.html
> why can’t the cause of citizenship be the citizenship of the mother AT his birth?
Then what is the purpose of the statute?
While Trump had nothing to do with any of these cases, I would hope that he would file, if necessary.
This whole thing got started because of an OFFHAND answer to a Washington Post reporter asking about Trump’s opinion.
But the Cruzified like nothing better than a Donald Trump conspiracy. It replaces the Boogey Man of their youth.
Trump was EXACTLY right to warn the party that the Democrats would not walk away from this.
BTW Rubio is not a NBC, either, and that is irrefutable.
Johnson added: “Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law. In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970: Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967—only 3 years before Senator Cruz’s birth.”
The document is a “preliminary list of electors,” and not a record of those who actually voted. Such lists were also prone to error, according to Breitbart News sources.
None, but the cases were misfiled before entities with no ability to make a court ruling, courts which denied the plaintiffs standing to sue and ONE court ruling on the merit of the case that is based on wet tissue paper.
This has been high stakes dodgeball.
But the RATS’ lawyers are smart enough to find a plaintiff with standing and sue in the Ninth district keeping the ball in play until October. That uncertainty would undermine Cruz no matter the outcome.
Trumpsters have nothing to do with cases filed by individuals some of whom are Democrats.
We have seen the damage that comes from violating that requirement. It must be resolved.
Dear Dumbass, Trump has not lost anything. I can’t say the same for you.
perhaps because he was an American??????????? and perhaps she no longer was. in any event she committed fraud.
NO, their parents are not “under the jurisdiction of US Law” but mainly under the jurisdiction of Mexico. They are not citizens.
Rubio, in contrast, was born to parents here under the jurisdiction of US law therefore, he IS a citizen just not a natural born citizen.
RE: Then what is the purpose of the statute?
To make sure that the mother’s loyalties as an American citizen stays INTACT.
The statute says in effect, if the mother can show that she still intends to be a loyal American citizen and has shown that she indeed has by meeting the requirements outlined, then she still is an American citizen and her child is likewise an American citizen at birth.
Too bad that “clueless” man has kicked his opponents asses like they are soccer balls. THEY must REALLY be clueless.
Comments like that just make your boy look real bad.
He had an erector set as a child.
Can you people be MORE naive? These “rulings” would not even be a bump in the road for the Democrats suits which will follow as sure as night follows day.
TDS can be very debilitating and is clearly ruining fine minds.
WS means everything to Cruz as lost there would mean even he and Cruzites could not argue that he has no chance.
WS would be nice for Trump and stop the charade but a lose will not stop his victory since it would mean a small gain in delegates for Cruz and he needs a HUGE gain to be viable. It would also represent the last major state Cruz would have a chance to win.
If the citizen parent does not meet the requirement of statute there is no grant of citizenship.
In other words, the foreign-born child of a citizen parent is not necessarily a citizen.
Therefore, the citizenship of the citizen parent is not the agency causing of the grant of citizenship.
Actually there doesn’t appear to be anyway that she could not have been an American citizen. At least under Candian law.
It is not a conspiracy when he mentions lawsuits and then they magically appear which are designed precisely to benefit him.
RE: If the citizen parent does not meet the requirement of statute there is no grant of citizenship.
But what if the citizen parent does? As is Cruz’s mother’s case?
RE: In other words, the foreign-born child of a citizen parent is not necessarily a citizen.
Only IF the parent does not meet the requirements of the statute. That is, the parents loses his/her citizenship when the child is born.
RE: Therefore, the citizenship of the citizen parent is not the agency causing of the grant of citizenship.
Disagree. As former Solicitors General Neil Katyal and Paul Clement have recently noted in the Harvard Law Review Forum,
SEE HERE:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
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. . . .
The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
Therefore, The citizenship of the parent AT THE TIME OF THE CHILD’s BIRTH IS the agency causing the grant of citizenship.
1.
If the citizen parent does not meet the requirement of statute there is no grant of citizenship.
In other words, the foreign-born child of a citizen parent is not necessarily a citizen.
Therefore, the citizenship of the citizen parent is not the agency causing of the grant of citizenship.
2.
If the citizen parent does meet the requirement of statute there is a grant of citizenship.
3.
The citizenship of the citizen parent was the same in both 1 & 2. The only difference between 1 & 2 is whether the requirements of statute were met. The determinative factor is the statute. The statute is the controlling factor.
RE: If the citizen parent does not meet the requirement of statute there is no grant of citizenship.
Ted Cruz’s mother did.
RE: In other words, the foreign-born child of a citizen parent is not necessarily a citizen.
Only if the parent did not meet the requirements of the statute.
RE: Therefore, the citizenship of the citizen parent is not the agency causing of the grant of citizenship.
Why not? If the parent meets the requirements of the statute and the child was born under that circumstance, the child is then a citizen by virtue of the parent’s citizenship.
RE: If the citizen parent does meet the requirement of statute there is a grant of citizenship.
Of course, and that’s what Ted Cruz’s mother met.
RE: The citizenship of the citizen parent was the same in both 1 & 2. The only difference between 1 & 2 is whether the requirements of statute were met. The determinative factor is the statute. The statute is the controlling factor.
Why was it not the intent of the framers for future Congress to grant citizenship the way they see fit based on the law that they passed?
The statute is A not THE or ONLY determinative factor. The more important factor is the intent of the framers.
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.