Posted on 04/08/2016 9:02:58 PM PDT by patlin
BETHESDA, Md., April 8, 2016/PRNewswire/ — Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in New Jersey resulting from charges of ballot access fraud. A primary ballot disqualification hearing is scheduled by the Secretary of State for Monday, April 11 at 9:00 a.m. in Mercerville, New Jersey.
Washington D.C. Law Professor Victor Williams charges that Ted Cruz fraudulently certified his constitutional eligibility for office to gain ballot access. Williams demands that Cruz be disqualified from several late-primary ballots: “Cruz committed ballot access fraud in each state when he falsely swore that he was a ‘natural born’ American citizen.” Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada and held his resulting Canadian citizenship until May 2014. Cruz is a naturalized (not natural born) American citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at morningstar.com ...
Have had the interview since July. That’s why I repeatedly suggested he have a SCOTUS post. Not anymore. GoFundme is collecting to get the PA case before the Court. One man trying to make a difference At least it will be heard on merits. He’s past the standing hurdle. Where are all the patriots?
Oh, Betty is running for president. Hmmmm, thanks...
Thank you for posting that. It is abundantly clear now that Ted KNOWS he was and now is not a natural born citizen... both of his parents were not citizens at his birth and his birth was NOT on American soil.
by his own words he is self condemned
Now if I am wrong, please correct me, but it is my understanding, from the study of Scalia’s works and the case law he provides for one to study, should not the emphasis of ones brief be finely tuned to the specifics and leave the generalities to the oral arguments? Because in most cases, as Scalia repeatedly admits, more often than not, the judge's mind is made up not during oral arguments, but from the briefs themselves. The oral arguments only strengthen ones case, or allow for any questions the judge might have.
... out of his own mouth!
Thank you for posting that
I agree with you. I don't much value in the history of the term, at least not in Cruz's case, becasue the text of the constitution and the case law are enough. Just the same, Elliott's brief is not rooted in the academic summaries. In contrast, Cruz's argument are heavily weighted on the academic advocacy pieces.
How do you suppose the US State Dept. came to the conclusion that Cruz was a US citizen and therefore, they issued him a US passport in 1986?
Figured you had it.
Just read parts of the thread and went to a link and found the interview snippet.
When Ted Cruz was born in Canada, his father was still a CUBAN Citizen, though some claim that he was a Canadian citizen. So no, both of Ted’s parents were NOT American Citizens when he was born.
I agree, however, they also do not get to the direct point and skip over critical language of the 1790 statute. We know that Cruz relies on this 1790 Act of Congress and the following parsed section that statute...
“...: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”
So they say, see, Cruz's father was a resident in the US before moving to Canada. But is this what the law really says? for context we must include the opening of that section...
” And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:...”
The statute is specific, it is referring to children born abroad of parents, both of whom are US citizens. As Scalia would say, ‘How absurd to think that the US government would have authority to make as it's citizens, children born to aliens in a foreign country’. And so then we must go back just a bit further where the statute reads...
” And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”
Clearly the statute is speaking strictly of parents who are citizens, not parents who are aliens. The right of citizenship never descends until the parents themselves become citizens, and citizenship follows that of the husband/father respectively.
Yes the briefs touch upon Bellei, however, they never directly make the distinction that in both cases, the father is an alien who temporarily resided in the US prior to the child being born abroad, which the 1790 Act of Congress never addresses. They go directly to expatriation without having ever resolved why it even pertains to the case. So, wouldn't it have been prudent to bring in the historical evidence from the Library of Congress that from 1790 to 1952 women and children followed the nationality of the husband/father respectively, rather than arguing against academic advocacy pieces that the Cruz briefs relied upon? Wouldn't it have been better to leave the majority of the rebuttal to those pieces to oral arguments and spent more time fine tuning their own argument based on the plain language of the Constitution and the statutes at large?
When I read the Bellei opinion, I find it fascinating and brilliant in its language & construct. Clear, concise and to the point and shouldn't these opinions be used as examples of how briefs should be constructed? Should not the lesser arguments (lengthier rebuttals to opposition briefs) be left to footnotes & oral arguments?
Only CanuckTed seems to be associated with dishonesty & fraud.
He’s so sleazy, he has now admitted marrying his 3rd cousin Heidi.
My point being, shouldn’t focus of the briefs that Elliot’s lawyers filed been more finely tuned to making their argument that Cruz is a naturalized citizen, thereby leaving the court with the only conclusion that Cruz is not a Constitutional art. 1 ‘natural born’ citizen?
I agree with your points but Ted is the wrong conclusion for me. I do not believe a person born in a foreign country whose parents were non American at the time of his birth and who 20 months ago renounced his Canadian citizenship is legally allowed to be president.
He is not in my view as honest as he is in your view.
This is not about us falling short of God’s glory but falling afoul of the Constitutional requirements of the office. Ted himself said NBC is both parents must be us citizens and birth must be on American soil just a few years back.
He qualifies by his own stated standards.... Not at all.
I am a fan of much of what he says... But not of his foreign status. It’s OK to call me a birthed on this matter.
Bribery or falsification of documents. Black market dealers or forgery? Who knows. Ted is not legally qualified as an NBC. BOTH parents must be American citizens and the child must be born on American soil.... Ted said so with his own mouth. He is not one of us Natural Born Citizens.
Bellei's father never resided in the US, plus, that should be irrelevant as it wasn't Bellei's father's citizenship that (in combination with the 1952 Act) produced Bellei's US citizenship. At the time of the 1790 act, the only parent who could transmit citizenship was the father, which is why no act until 1934 would have been of any use to Bellei.
All that said, there is no way to predict how any given individual will come to the conclusion that born abroad is alien, unless a statute covers the person. I think the constitution (14th amendment) plus Bellei, plus Wong Kim ark is the most direct route. Bellei notes the 1790 Act, but doesn't spend much time dissecting it, and doesn't appear to need to dissect it. SCOTUS, in 1971, said that a person born abroad is, if a citizen, a naturalized citizen. If that person was not a naturalized citizen, they could not be denaturalized, and expatriation follows a totally different line of cases.
But, other people obsess over the 1790 statute, and see it as a definition rather than a vehicle for creating a legal fiction of citizenship even though born an alien.
The plaintiff, complainant, objector doesn't get to see the opponents arguments in advance, and the usual process allows the plaintiff a rebuttal to the defendant. Funny thing in these cases is that the defendant (Cruz) never addresses the complaint head on - he make arguments along totally different lines.
I agree with that. However, from news reports, it appears that Pellegrini does not see "naturalized" and "natural born" as mutually exclusive. Unless you know he is of that mind to begin with, you wouldn't find the case law or other resource that sets out the principle that "naturalized" and "natural born" are mutually exclusive.
Well, that’s a relief.
I clicked fearing a real issue. But, whew! It’s just more birfer drivel!
We’ve been seeing how far that gets in court.
Exactly, no one knows and so we must stick to the facts that prove Cruz is not constitutionally eligible to be president. When we go down the road of innuendo and what ifs, making claims that we do not have evidence to support, these false claims negate any credibility we may have gained. Therefore, it is best to just stick to the facts and let the truth unfold as more evidence comes forward.
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.