Posted on 04/22/2016 10:14:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Utah lawyer has appealed a lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging Republican presidential candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen" and therefore ineligible to become president.
Legal scholars say there is virtually no chance the high court will consider the appeal, partly because they do not want to encourage a wave of similar suits.
Cruz has faced questions about his eligibility to become president from his chief rival, Donald Trump. Cruz was born in Canada, though his mother is a U.S. citizen.
The U.S. Constitution sets only a few standards for presidential eligibility. Candidates must be 35, have lived at least 14 years in the country and be a "natural born citizen."
To some, legal vagaries exist surrounding the constitutional language. Congress has never passed a law explicitly defining the term "natural born citizen" and the nation's founding document does not specify what qualifications someone must have.
For centuries, the courts have fallen back to the British common law explanation, that a "natural born citizen" is anyone who is granted citizenship at birth and, therefore, does not have to undergo any naturalization process later in life. Traditionally, that has included anyone born on American soil and the children of American citizens born abroad.
But that definition has generally not been tested in courts because federal judges are first bound to consider whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a lawsuit. To establish standing, someone making allegations has to pass the threshold they have been personally injured in some way.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Strac6 is a total a-hole and likely a GOP operative. He’s a troll. that is why I am not pinging him to this comment. He showed up on FR and as soon as he hit the ground, he’s been an a-hole.
Oh please, 1401 interprets and enforces the USC, as does every other law.
The classic example is why are you able to post here without government censorship. It’s because SCOTUS agreed that the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press includes your right to pose uncensored on the internet.
Want to give up that right?
If challenged in the courts, no law has authority that SCOTUS has not agreed meets the requirements, and in fact is authorized by the USC.
Don’t like it? Call the complaint line at 202 479 3000.
You know damn well there is no law, current or otherwise, that defines Natural Born Citizen.
The USC 1201 you continually post does not say what you pretend it says. You may be a lawyer but that doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about. In fact, you’re a slimy little person who has a purpose on FR and that purpose is not to pursue truth.
I wonder what your previous screen name/s are or were.
Point of order. The US Constitution did not create US Citizens. US Citizens were created by the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.
And yes, the Declaration of Independence cites "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as their authority to create a new country.
And while i'm at it, I will point out that I have looked at four different English law books from the period prior to 1770, and the word "Citizen" is not even in any of these law books. The word "citizen" appears to be virtually unknown to British Law.
Absent followership to court decisions, one has anarchy.
The BLM crowd believes most homes in the South, even modern ones, or at least the land under them, were acquired through illegal slave labor, so 30% of all homes should be given to Blacks... for free.
The Indians (”Native Americans”) believe it’s all theirs.
The courts do not agree with them, but since you claim that “The fact that the courts agree or disagree on anything is irrelevant,” are you ready to move out now?
If you reply that guns, etc, are the answer.... P.S, they have guns too!
Wow.
I am not slimy.
I took a bath Monday night.... or maybe it was the Monday before...
PS, I’ve learned from life that when one attacks me personally, it’s because they cannot attack the points I made.
PS, If you had read my entire string, you would have noticed that I am a Trump supporter!
I am against him and the Citizenship Crybabies relying on the phony citizenship issue, because, legally it is a non-starter, but MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, it diverts public attention away from the vote-getting points Trump could be making to the swing voters to get the votes he needs to be elected in November!
PS, I’ve posted it as 1401, not 1201
> That statement is sheer concentrated idiocy.
Per usual.
No
None
My previous law school monicker, at graduation, was Salutatorian
Really? Watching the courts for many decades now, I can reasonably conclude that we pretty much have anarchy anyways.
Homo marriage? Abortion on Demand? Kelo? Lawrence? Anchor Babies? Bake the Cake? Obamacare?
What isn't anarchy?
The BLM crowd believes most homes in the South, even modern ones, or at least the land under them, were acquired through illegal slave labor, so 30% of all homes should be given to Blacks... for free.
The courts do not agree with them, but since you claim that “The fact that the courts agree or disagree on anything is irrelevant,” are you ready to move out now?
What makes this funny is the trend in the courts going in this very direction. I will not be at all surprised if some goofy Judge or Judges decides they have a case and orders reparations or evictions. It would be the Cherry topper on a long legacy of idiotic and ridiculous court decisions.
If you reply that guns, etc, are the answer.... P.S, they have guns too!
Not a problem. They don't have as many, nor do as many have the skills to use them to the extent necessary.
This seems like a good time to quote that one Army Ranger who was confronted by some gang members. (Up in Seattle, I think.)
" I and all my friends are trained professional killers. The current legal state of affairs does a lot more to protect you from us than it ever did to protect us from you."
Why should Americans expect the Courts to resolve an incredibly obvious question when they could be spending their so very valuable time digging out abortion or gun restrictions from the Bill of Rights?
Even your one word answers are ambiguous. "No" you aren't really prepared for this argument, or "No" you won't be quiet until you learn better what you are talking about?
I'm pretty sure it's going to be the later. It's always the later.
:)
PS, you , might reread my posts to ensure that it was 1401 USC, not 1201 that I posted.
1201 involves kidnapping..... or the proper federally-mandated storage temperature for an endangered catfish species taken at night from the east bank of the Mississippi River between mile marker 357 and 386, when the person catching the catfish is a disabled African American engaged in Interstate Commerce.
I’ve forgotten which issue that law covers.....
Anarchy is here??? Now???
Then don’t waste time here on FR!
Get you gun. Better yet, get all your guns. (No, you cannot have my Sigs.)
Set up OPs and LPs now. Get 5 locks on all doors!
“They” are coming for YOU now!
(all kidding aside... have a good evening.)
Citizen, natural born citizen, and naturalized citizen.
See Article 2. It is plain as day, in the very first words that two types existed and that was long before any person was ever ‘naturalized’ according to
Congressional statutes.
Big freaking deal that my finger hit a “2” instead of a “4”.
BTW, what was your previous screen name or names?
Not that I really care.
I’ve seen ones like you come and go over the years.
He’s a paid operative troll. Of that I have no doubt.
Not the slightest bit witty or funny.
You are very boring.
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.