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 ...
“Big freaking deal that my finger hit a “2” instead of a “4”
Was your finger playing with your Little “Jeremiah”
Now, now, we mustn’t get so upset when someone proves you so wrong.
And PS, read it again
a l l
v e r y
s l o w l y
and you will see that I am a Trump supporter, simply worried that his other supporters are wasting time on an issue that no swing voters care about.
They vote their wallets, their jobs, etc.
The Constitutional Crybabies are simply focusing time and energy on something that every modern court, the ones we as Americans agree to support as part of the Republic when we say the Pledge, have said is a non-starter, and in the process, avoiding matters and issues that can draw voters to our/Trump’s side.
End of discussion.
Blackstone, like his great predecessors Edward Coke and Matthew Hale, articulated the common law in various volumes. Their reliance on Magna Carta is eventually reflected in how the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with its Bill of Rights.
The chain, in reverse chronological development, is that the Constitution was influenced by the common law, which was influenced by natural law.
The Constitution was an improvement over the common law, putting into one document designed to tie down and legally bind the government certain notions guaranteeing the separation of powers, federalism, and other structural protections of liberty and security from threats our own government would forever pose – because that is the nature of government. Changes to this structure of government, as have occurred unconstitutionally through the courts, the legislature, and the executive branch, are threats to the liberty and security of the people, who are the ultimate sovereigns in our American republic.
The common law recognized that laws governing society were capable of evolving, so long as the changes were not inconsistent with natural law and constitutional principles. From natural law we have the concepts of the security and sanctity of life, liberty, and property. Those rights are not granted by government, but instead are to be protected by government since they are inherent as given by God (“nature’s God,” hence, natural rights and the basis of natural law).
Common law developed through not just acts of the legislature and decisions of the judiciary, but custom (under certain conditions). The great English jurists who articulated important concepts of natural and common law also recognized that acts of the legislature or the King could be “unconstitutional” if inconsistent with the protections of the liberty and security of the people.
The American Constitution improved on that concept, making certain that even our elected officials were bound down by the Constitution through enumerated powers. Thus, we have a rule of law over government more perfect than Magna Carta and the common law.
An originalist view of the Constitution recognizes that of course laws governing society may evolve, but that the political class is not free to amend the Constitution without going through the amendment process, and certainly must not violate the Constitution, which is our fundamental and paramount law governing government. Alas, it is frequently violated by America’s biggest lawbreaker.
Those who rely on Blackstone for the interpretation of “natural born” as being born on American soil or only to the father when on foreign soil, should know that Blackstone was not construing a dictate of natural law, but was expressing an EVOLUTION of the concept of natural born.
Blackstone also recognized that children of the sovereign born on foreign soil were natural born. In America, the sovereign is not the King. With sovereigns inter-marrying with other sovereigns for political purposes, the allegiances of the time had somewhat different realities from today.
Note also that Blackstone’s interpretation of the law at the time would allow for “anchor babies.” He writes, “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
The American law of sovereignty and inheritance is obviously different from an 18th Century English interpretation. Blackstone’s was not a natural law interpretation, nor a hard-and-fast rule for defining “natural born” that should govern an originalist interpretation. Indeed, the American law of naturalization and citizenship was intended to be left to legislative construct. The Civil War constitutional amendments applied to former slaves, and were an overdue correct application of a natural law flaw in American law, but consistent with the Declaration of Independence.
A number of law professors, who probably are not originalists but whose views I believe to be sincere, have indicated that one may not be consistent in claiming to be originalist and insist that Ted Cruz is a natural born American citizen.
So, it can be argued that because Ted Cruz’s mother is an American, it makes him natural born and eligible to be president.
And of course, His personal allegiance to America is unquestionable.
RE: First clue....There are no “Citizens” in Britain, only subjects.
So, you are arguing that people like Paul McCartney or David Cameron are not British Citizens?
“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.”
I was under the impression that the Supreme Courts decision would be the final say in this matter. How would their decision encourage more suits? Or are they simply protecting Obama still? Trying to water down/cloud what a NBC is? And lastly, if not the USSC.. WHO could put this issue to rest and issue a final decision?
Any legal scholars who could explain would be most appreciated, thanks.
RE: Ted Cruz knows full well what the founders intent was when they specified ‘natural born’ US citizenship to hold the office of president. There is none that can make lying Cruz a ‘natural born’ US citizen.
I highly doubt that you would know since they never explained exactly what they meant by the term.
Sincere legal scholars on both sides of the aisle -— both liberal and conservative are still arguing about the exact meaning of the term and who qualifies.
Many conservatives argue that he gets his American citizenship by birth from his American mother.
Simply calling someone a liar without arguing your point is meaningless.
RE: The Constitution’s Preamble states that the Constitution is based on Natural Law concepts Not British “Common” (unwritten) Law.
OK, so Cruz’s mother is American. She never lost her citizenship and she was American at the time of Cruz’s birth.
Why does that not accrue to Ted Cruz at birth?
We didn't follow English law on the word "citizen" because they didn't use that word. You can't even find that word in period English law dictionaries.
Words mean things. You can't gloss over the usage of that particular word which comes from a very specific source.
The English version of natural law is that every subject owes a perpetual allegiance to the King who is God's servant on Earth. Disobedience to the King is Disobedience to God.
Yeah, that's the very first bit of the English version of "natural law" that we tossed out.
It is the voters and not the courts who are ruling against Cruz. I say that as someone who supported Cruz from the day he announced. But, the reality is that we are probably facing a choice between Trump and Hillary. We need to accept that reality and do the right thing.
RE: The Constitution is very clear about who is to choose the president and it is not the judiciary.
Disqualifying a candidate because he does not meet a constitutional criteria does not mean that they are choosing a President.
It simply means they are determining a person’s eligibility, that’s all.
If he is ineligible because he does not meet the constitutional criteria, no amount of clamor from electors will make him President.
Similarly, if he is eligible but the electors do not want him, he does not get to be President either.
More than 50 times in a row, we have chosen our presidents by following the procedures described in the Constitution. If no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives chooses our president. The Constitution does not provide the judiciary with a role in the selection of presidents. And, I don't think that the courts have ever wanted any role in the selection of presidents. That's why the score is more than 50-0.
bkmk
I was taught when passing a test on the US Constitution was required what a ‘natural born’ US citizen means. I learned that I was NOT a ‘natural born’ US citizen... My two US citizen parents did not birth me on US soil. The US Constitution is NOT the sole property of corrupt lawyers and judges.... It was bequeathed to every citizen... And only those that are a ‘natural born’ US citizen are eligible to hold the office of president...
Even the liberals liberal law school professor, Larry Tribe, knows what the ‘original intent’ of the founders meant when they specifically used the phrase ‘natural born’. But Larry Tribe advocates the Constitution is a ‘living document’ that the legal class can reshape... Ted Cruz made his name claiming that he follows the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution.... Larry Tribe called Cruz a hypocrite after that debate when Cruz danced all over the US Constitution, when asked by the moderator about Cruz’s eligibility.
Yes you are right about the Declaration of independence, but it only established our intent to separate from the British Crown.
The US Constitution made us a nation.
“None
My previous law school monicker, at graduation, was Salutatorian.”
Now it is “TROLL!”
You won’t last very long around here. Far better lawyers and much more knowledgeable posters .. Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty!
Back to Democrat Underground with ya, troll!
Learn how to spell “moniker” while your at it “councilor,” ahem ! You might just use the built in “Spell Check” if that isn’t too hard for you.
“Finally, why is this BS?”
Because if you do not defend every aspect of the Constitution you’ll lose it little by little.
See The Broken Window Theory of Law Enforcement.
Troll!
Hey Troll read this.....
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to [218] all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. [102]
Bet you think that is loony tunes, birther, Crybaby B,S. too.
Lolololol
“Why does that not accrue to Ted Cruz at birth?”
It may under the proscribed circumstances. Being a “citizen” does not make one eligible for the Presidency. The Quality of Natural Born Citizenship makes one eligible.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to [218] all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. [102]”
Law of Nations 1757 de Vattel
A text used by the Framers when writing the Constitution.
Question for you.....Why does his father’s Cuban citizenship not accrue to Ted Cruz at birth?
You forgot that the Senate and Congress certify the Electoral College results. Ultimately it is they who determine/apply eligibility standards. It takes 1 member from each chamber to throw the question before Congressional scrutiny. In 2008 the Republicans should have objected to Obama and applied Resolution 511 to the eligibility issue.
While the Republicans failed to do this in 2008 &2012 the Democrats have signaled their intent to disqualify any Cruz election on Constitutional eligibility grounds. The Democrats see no hypocrisy in doing what is their duty/right/obligation by the Constitution just because the Republicans failed to meet the obligations of their oath to support and defend the Constitution. (That they forgot their oath doesn’t occur to them.)
We were talking about the 1700’s.
“Subsequent acts of law cannot change the meaning of the US Constitution.”
Then you’ve shown you have a misunderstanding of how and why the constitution was written. There are procedures in place to amend it, as has been done. It also was never meant to be all encompassing, permitting laws and courts to rule on matters that it did not specifically address such as this one. And the fact is the Constitution does not specify the meaning of NBC.
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.