9th Circuit Court Would Likely Keep Cruz Off Ballot

London Telegraph ^ | February 5th, 2016 | reasonmclucus

[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.

[CJ Wolf]

http://www.uscis.gov/system/files_force/USCIS/files/Government_and_You_answer_key.pdf?download=1

They weren’t elected though

[1035rep]

Last I saw the 9th Circuit had been reversed almost 80 percent of time. They recently fell into second place for reversals being beat out by the 6th circuit. They may be trying to catch up and reclaim their crown.

[Bob434]

the child born abroad to a us citizen has the SAME legal status as a child born to a us citizen on soil

Supreme Court ruling- at birth and by birth do not need a naturalization process- They are both considered the same - As per the supreme court-

[Busko]

The 9th circuit court needs to be dismantled and then reloaded with realistic judges!

[Bob434]

posts 128 and 130 have your answer to that- both excellent posts based on case laws and the laws governing NBC

[bushpilot2]

[Springfield Reformer]

Circular argument. He cannot subvert the definition of NBC given in the Constitution because no such definition is found in the Constitution.

Peace,

SR

[RC one]

Citizens are either natural-born or naturalized. One who is born in the United States or under its jurisdiction is a natural-born citizen without reference to the nationality of his parents. Their presence here constitutes a temporary allegiance, sufficient to make a child a citizen.

Theodore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894)

It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

A statute that proclaims someone to be a citizen by birth is an act of naturalization and, therefore, anyone who derives their citizenship from such an act is a naturalized citizen and is, therefore, not a Natural Born Citizen. If Ted Cruz bases his citizenship status off of a naturalization act, he is immediately not a NBC and is ineligible to be POTUS in accordance with article II, section I, clause 5 which states:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

You will note that it does not say: No Person except a citizen at birth as a result of any future naturalization act, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

[Bob434]

you can keep posting these all you like Ted was never naturalized- at birth and by birth do NOT need an act/process of naturalization as per the supreme court’s decision in the case I posted about- please point out where Ted was ever naturalized in a ceremony? He got his citizenship by descent- no need to be naturalized-

[BlueDragon]

ping to #130

Tell me if this

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

is what would be the most central, uh, controlling legal authority that would be quite difficult, if not impossible to surmount, thus leaving Cruz well beyond any serious legal challenge as for his qualification to run for presidential office.

[Leaning Right]

He (Cruz) cannot subvert the definition of NBC given in the Constitution because no such definition is found in the Constitution.

Right you are. The Founders unwisely were not specific enough in this particular case. So if the Supreme Court rules that Cruz is natural-born, well, I guess I can live with that.

[bushpilot2]

Rogers v Bellei

[RC one]

The constitution was written in the language of the English common law. if you don't understand that language, you don't understand the constitution. The English common law is clear on what it means to be a Natural Born Citizen and this was clear to the authors of the constitution and to the many legal scholars whose opinions I have previously provided in this thread.

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)

[Hoodat]

Maybe we should just let the leftist judges of the 9th Circuit choose our candidate for us.

[unlearner]

Every US citizenship is conveyed by law, including natural born citizenship. Otherwise Indians and slaves would have been natural born citizens by virtue of where they were born. It took a Constitutional amendment to fix the slavery citizenship issue.

[Springfield Reformer]

And you should know as well as I do that British common law as described by Blackstone did allow for the occasional natural born “subject” as one born to an established British subject living abroad. So retreat to British common law is no defense against jus sanguinis.

Peace,

SR

[Bob434]

would you pelase address post 152 for me as you and I have spoken of this subject about the Bellei case before and you can certainly explain it much better than I?

[bushpilot2]

Department of Justice...

[moonhawk]

Citizens is plural.

[bushpilot2]