Posted on 02/05/2016 8:22:26 PM PST by kathsua
Those who think Sen. Ted Cruz can be elected to a job he isn’t eligible for are ignoring the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. If Republicans make the mistake of nominating Cruz for President of the United States, Democrats in California and other states will challenge his eligibility. There’s at least a 90% probability the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco would rule him ineligible because he is a naturalized citizen rather than a “natural born citizen†as required by the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at my.telegraph.co.uk ...
Raphael Cruz had parents as registered Canadian voters when he was born, thats evidence of something.
well like I mentioned it’s under special circumstances, and as Sovereigns of this country, it’s our laws that trump other country’s laws- Could they develop an affection and allegiance to another country? Yes sure they could- Even people living here as NBC’s with no dual citizenship can develop affection and allegiance to other countries- but I’m not sure what the law says regarding eligibility for dual citizenship folks- There WAS something In the early naturalization acts (1790 and 1795 and later) that required certain things in order for a person to become a citizen here regarding establishing a bond with either US citizen parent and evolving an allegiance through the bond- I dont’; recall exactly now- but it had to do with ensuring allegiance to this country- perhaps regarding dual NBC, there is some special requirements as well, I don’t know
Don’t be so sure of that. Remember there are 4 leftist judges on that court and John Roberts, who gave us Obamacare. He will do whatever he is told to do by Obama.
It is significant to note that in a more recent case, in 2001, the Supreme Court indicated that under
current law and jurisprudence a child born to U.S. citizens while living or traveling abroad, and a
child born in the geographic United States, had the same legal status. In Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS,162 the Court explained that a woman who is a U.S. citizen living abroad and expecting a child could re-enter the United States and have the child born “in†the United States, or could stay abroad and not travel back to this country and have the child born abroad, and that the child in either case would have the same status as far as U.S. citizenship:
[T]he statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens
abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or
does not have the means to do so.163
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Except that “law” has not fixed what the meaning of “natural born citizen” actually means. None of the case citations typically presented in these arguments are binding as to that definition. All dicta, no ratio decidendi. Vattell’s definition is not in the constitutional text. The opinions dealing with various citizenship issues have never had to decide, not even once, whether a person is NBC for purposes of constitutional office. Much of the legal academic opinion that is cited here refers to the more certain cases, but does not exclude the edge cases.
On top of all this, if the founder’s opinion of the matter is of any importance, the one time they spoke on the matter statutorily, in the 1790 Naturalization Act, they, the founders, approved of a foreign born child born to one citizen parent as being a natural born citizen.
Furthermore, because Congress and the electorate provide an adequate means of determining candidate eligibility, very likely no court up the chain will be interested in taking this case, as any conclusion they produce will likely be stuck down in SCOTUS as wrongly taking up a nonjusticeable political question.
So as I’ve said many times now, if folks want to nail this down, waiting for the judiciary to do it is a nonstarter. You’d have to do it by passing a constitutional amendment, something for the Article 5 Convention folks to consider.
Peace,
SR
Cruz was unquestionably born in the allegiance of the sovereign nation of Canada. he was subject to their jurisdiction at the time of his birth as were his parents. He is without a doubt a natural born citizen of Canada and there is no Canadian or US law that can alter that reality. His citizenship to Canada is NATURAL. His US citizenship is derived by the will of the Unites States and is, therefore, not natural.
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
As herself ---a natural born U.S. citizen.
Which, as far as I can tell, would bring us to
I'll leave it to you to find the qualifying statutory language, for yourself.
Once you do so (and even if you remain unclear, conflicted on the point -- or are persuaded to continue to rely upon the list of citations you have kindly enough supplied to us here) then I do ask that upon the next occasion which you speak of this subject on this forum, that you also provide and circulate the link which I just supplied to you for your own study.
That is the statute that is nearest to the subject matter, and which language leaves it clear enough that Cruz was at birth, a citizen of the United States due to the by now well established qualification of his own natural mother being a citizen of the United States, other past centuries conditional legal arguments pertaining to persons being subjects of sovereign rulers or foreign lands such as you have taken pains to gather and publish citation of, notwithstanding.
What matters now far more the those past court cases, is what the laws have by now have evolved to be, it being quite difficult from a legal standpoint to justify ignoring clear language in a statute having been signed into law short of finding Constitutional defect in codified language if law, which (I assume) was adopted by Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) and signed into law by an acting President of the United States, at each juncture of the listed changes, the next link from Cornell University including notes as to the what and when of past modifications to the Code.
He is betraying the constitution by subverting it. He would be the first ever foreign born POTUS. He would open the door for even further subversion in future elections.
Gee- that’ll come as quite a surprise to all thsoe who declared George Romney and McCain eligible-
All of this is rather moot when it comes to Cruz. No one thinks he’d betray the US to Canada. Yet the NB clause was put in place specifically to prevent any such possibility.
The fact is that Cruz has already acted to undermine the sovereignty of the United States- by his original position regarding amnesty, by undermining American jobs in promoting a 5 fold increase in foreign visas, by his enabling vote; which tied the hands of Congress, for TPA, by his vote for the Cocker bill to enable Iran to obtain nuclear weapons & to transfer US tax dollars to them.
Further, his wife was a contributor to the paper promoting the North American Union (NAU) which would UNIFY Mexico, the United States and CANADA- dissolving the borders between the 3 countries.
Finally, Cruz did not bother to renounce his Canadian citizenship until 15 months ago- AFTER LIVING IN AMERICA FOR FORTY YEARS. And we’re to believe this man is committed to America?
Considering the lack of morals & ethics displayed by Senator Cruz, he would sell us out in a minute if it advanced his ambition. That much is obvious to anyone who is not willfully blind.
The Natural Born Citizen clause was made in order to prevent people like Ted Cruz and Barack 0bama from becoming president.
And there’s a 100% chance that the 9th Circuit Court will be told to take a hike.
Trump and I agree, Cruz is NBC.
Isn’t Trump always right?
It is significant to note that in a more recent case, in 2001, the Supreme Court indicated that under
current law and jurisprudence a child born to U.S. citizens while living or traveling abroad, and a
child born in the geographic United States, had the same legal status. In Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS,162 the Court explained that a woman who is a U.S. citizen living abroad and expecting a child could re-enter the United States and have the child born “in†the United States, or could stay abroad and not travel back to this country and have the child born abroad, and that the child in either case would have the same status as far as U.S. citizenship:
[T]he statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens
abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or
does not have the means to do so.163
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Some say yes, some say no. I say that in cases like this, the courts should take a strict and narrow view of the Constitution, and so should rule that Cruz is not natural-born.
I say that reluctantly, because from my point of view Cruz has many good qualities. And I'm quite sure that the courts will not agree with me.
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.