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 ...
“My previous law school monicker, at graduation, was Salutatorian”
Further reason why lawyers, especially lawyers from Harvard and the other Ivy League colleges, are now held to be in such ill repute.
“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.”
That is a fake strawman argument. The natural born citizen clause is in the Constitution, and you cannot invalidate that clause by changing the definition of natural born citizen as it was understood and used by the authors of the Constitution. The cooks you are trying to enable with your false Sophistry repeatedly tried to enact an Amendment to the Constitution that would remove the natural born citizen clause, and all of those many attempts failed. Having failed to rid themselves of the restrictions of the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution, your crooks decided to just pretend to redefine or simply disregard the original meaning of the natural born citizen clause and use their control of the three branches of government and the two major political parties to just nullify and reverse the natural born citizen clause in defiance of the Constitution and anyone who would defend it.
Did you even bother to read USC 1401 in full. It has a reach-back provision in section G moving applicability back to December 24, 1952, making Cruz well and fully a Natural Born Citizen at birth.
I think it is I who “gets the simple little details correct.”
Your apology is accepted.
So when you need a lawyer, instead of a lawyer, hire a plumber to represent you. There even (a little bit) cheaper per hour.
I always thought it was US soil which means the actual place someone was born was the most important thing, not one or both parents being a citizen. If Cruz didn't fear that's what the courts would rule based on precedent, he'd wouldn't have any reason to have his records sealed, that's my opinion.
Look, that argument has been used over and over. Ted has also been required to meet his obligations in court. 3 times so far if I am not mistaken. Every court has declared a no finding and dismissed the case. He is a citizen
We haven’t really seen what Trump will do with the rules of the Constitution. I doubt if he’s ever read it. So, I can’t honestly say he’s abused it. I can say a few of his proclamations might be unconstitutional and therefore you must not care about him abusing his power and Constitution as long as it’s in your interests.
Re: All 3 replies to me, especially “The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly decided a person born abroad is not and cannot ever be a natural born citizen”
There’s obviously a LOT you don’t understand. No matter which side of the matter you are on most everyone agrees that the Constitution does NOT DEFINE what an NBC is. If you think it does please quote that section.
In addition, please name the USSC decisions that have ruled on who is and isn’t an NBC. Hint: there aren’t any.
Obviously, but you are wrong on the details (not saying that the error you make here affects the outcome, just that it reflects your attention to detail) and you are wrong on the conclusion. The "reach back" provision pertains to applicability of service abroad to US residency for the parent, a provision that is totally inapplicable in the Cruz case.
People keep citing Vattel ( see one of the posts above ). But we don’t even know if the framers were thinking of Vattel when they wrote this phrase.
............................................................
We DO know that Vattel was a heavy influence on the Framers and that The Law of Nations was cited BY NAME in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10. Everyone knew what natural born citizen meant just as they knew what Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God meant.
You are right. Cruz, Goldwater, Romney Sr. and McCain were all ineligible to be POTUS. We were all fools to have ever voted for any of them, as our votes were just wasted.
The courts, not one of which ever issued a stayed decision that they were ineligible were totally wrong. You are right.
You know better than everyone else. Your years of practice of the law make you more qualified than any court or judge to decide this matter.
Thank you for providing us this insight. Please ensure you mail it to SCOTUS at #1 First Avenue NE, Washington, DC. Please mail it right away, as they clerk says they will hold any decision re: Cruz until they get your guidance on this matter.
PS, they are having some trouble deciding Zubik v. Burwell. Could you give them insight on that as well?
It reads : 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Where is the term “Natural Born Citizen” mentioned?
I said Vattel is mentioned. He wrote The Law of Nations.
Vattel was considered THE Authority on International Law of his time! Vattel and The Law of Nations are cited directly in Supreme Court decisions regarding citizenship and natural born citizen. The term “natural born citizen” is cited in The Law of Nations.
re: I said Vattel is mentioned. He wrote The Law of Nations.
Vattel’s name was not mentioned. LITERALLY. And when the Law of Nations was referred to , it was referring to piracies and offenses against what the nations considered to be crimes against nations.
RE: Vattel was considered THE Authority on International Law of his time!
Well, I’d like you to show me a quote or a writing by the framers (anyone) specifically referring to his work when they spoke about being a natural born citizen.
You can start with James Madison in the Federalist Papers. I’m all ears.
I’ll tell you what! YOU can do some research for yourself! I have posted numerous times on the subject with details. I do not intend to do so again. Check out Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Jay, just for starters.
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.