Posted on 02/18/2016 2:38:43 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Donald Trump's threatened to sue Ted Cruz to keep him off the ballot because of his Canadian roots -- but two New Yorkers have beat him to the punch.
The pair filed papers in Manhattan Supreme Court Thursday asking the court to order Cruz off the ballot in the the New York State Republican Presidential primaries, arguing he's ineligible to run because he was born in Canada.
Cruz has insisted that he is qualified to be President because any child born abroad to an American citizen gets American citizenship automatically.
When Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, his mother was an American citizen. She was born in Wilmington, Delaware. His father was a native of Cuba who became a citizen of Canada after Cruz was born.
In court papers, Barry Korman and William Gallo say Cruz "has publicly admitted that he was born in Canada" and New York State election law says "a person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or party position who is ... ineligible to be elected to such office or position or ... meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications."
They point out that Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution says "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."
Therefore, they contend, Cruz is "constitutionally ineligible" to become President.
Cruz maintains he is a "natural born" citizen, because his mom was a citizen.
The action against the NYS Board of Elections was filed by Manhattan attorney Roger Bernstein.
New York's Presidential primaries are April 19.
Cruz is facing similar challenges in at least two other states.
“babies born to foreign mothers impregnated by American GI’s.”
They must be citizens. If an American woman get pregnant from a foreign man, has the baby overseas, that baby is a citizen...Cruz
If an American man gets a foreign woman pregnant and she has the baby overseas, that baby must be a citizen.
Otherwise it is sexiest! Whose body the baby is in before birth should not have any bearing on the legal citizenship of the baby.
your interpretation of original intent. The only WRITTEN example from the founding era in law supports Cruz as NBC.
If you can find any legal definition of NBC in US law other than 1790 please cite it.
Later laws that do not define it do not remove the original intent value of the only WRITTEN in Law example to guide in original intent.
Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?
What if you heard that Congress was moving to change Immigration & Naturalization laws so the every child born overseas to 1 citizen parent & 1 foreign parent would forever be deemed a ‘natural born’ citizen. (101st Congress) H.R. 1380, (99th Congress) H.R. 2535,
Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?
Read about all the shocking, the outrageous and ambivalence towards the US Constitution by those who took an oath to uphold it! https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/the-%e2%80%9ccongressional%e2%80%9d-natural-born-citizen-part-ii-shocked-outraged-or-ambivalent/
Title 8 is a law for Aliens.
Actually that is the law as it stands now.
Birth right citizenship is at this time the law of the land that is why they are anchor babies.
Just because we may not like the law that does not mean it does not exist.
And in that section you will find their requirement for “exclusive” allegiance. It is called “The Expatriation Act of 1868” and is the statute that governs & requires the renunciation of ALL foreign attachments. A natural born citizen never had any attachments to a foreign nation, a naturalized one did. Get the picture?
Best to get it settled early in the game. Worst case would have been for the Dems to bring it up in the general election.
Sorry that is incorrect. Title 8 section 1401 defines who the US defines as nationals and citizens at birth. Section 1101 section A part (23) defines that naturalization is the process that confers citizenship AFTER BIRTH.
NBS?
You are correct. Cruz is a natural born subject of the Crown’s Canada.
Constitution limits Congress to Naturalization.
That was false. The "Election Commission" has not decided. It has, however, indicated HOW it will decide challenges.
A spokesman for the state Board of Elections said the agency will address the matter at a meeting Feb. 23. The rep, John Conklin, said the BOE is likely to punt on the debate.An agency staff report has found that the Board of Elections "is not the proper venue [for the issue] because the presidential primary doesn't elect candidates for the presidency, it elects delegates for the national convention," Conklin said.
I haven't found a copy of the lawsuit yet, but suspect it is intended to instruct the BOE, before the BOE renders its decision.
I like the 14th Amendment just the way it is, just as I like the 16th Amendment just the way it is. So just because you are ignorant of the law does not mean I have to adopt your uninformed definition of it. No. I much rather stand on the same foundation of the men & women who ratified the Constitution, that of actually knowing the law so to apply the law as it is written. And to know the law, one must understand the rules for writing law so to apply them when interpreting the law. And in this case, where citizenship is referred to in 2 different sections of the Constitution, we must apply “noscitur a sociss” (associated words bear 0on one another’s meaning). Or “in pari material” (statutes are to be interpreted together, as though they were one law). And finally, the Constitutional Doubt Canon where a statute should not be interpreted in a way that avoids placing its constitutionality in doubt.
At the revolution & subsequent ratification of the US Constitution, one was either a American/US citizen ONLY or a foreigner because they were subjects/citizens of a foreign nation. One could not be both and at that time, the nationality of the child was that of the father. At that time, the nationality of the wife was that of her husband, NO exceptions, it was one nationality for the entire household. And so by this alone, Cruz is ineligible.
Sorry, USC Title 8 section 1401 does not even contain the words “exclusive” or “allegiance”
The Expatriation Act of 1868 is codified in Title 8 section 1481. In subsection A, there are only two ways to be a citizen of the US. Either by birth or by naturalization.
Section 1101 specifically defines naturalization as a process that occurs “after birth”.
Therefore, if by the conditions of one’s birth, one qualifies as a citizen of the US, then one has never been and never needed to be naturalized. As such, they are a natural born citizen.
Further, the authority for the establishment of these rules is vested with Congress as an enumerated power according to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
What country is at the top of Ted’s birth certificate?
Sorry you are again incorrect. The Constitution specifically empowers Congress to establish the rules of naturalization. That is far more than just naturalization. It includes who is an alien, who need to be naturalized, how that process occurs, AND ALSO, who does not need to be naturalized and who is a citizen at birth.
Is there some part of the definition of the word “exclusive” that you need further assistance so to understand it’s meaning?
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
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.