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.
No, but I do need you to point it out in Title 8 Section 1401 where Congress defines citizens at birth. Here is the link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Please show me where it is the text.
The pamphlet title, or government web page, or opinion of some law professor is .... irrelevant.
What matter is the LAW. The current law is expressed in USC Title 8 Section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens at birth.
Now per the pamphlet you supplied, If one meets the requirements listed, one is a citizen at birth. The record of that birth does not change either the status of that birth nor does it change the individuals citizenship. They were born a citizen and have not needed to be naturalized.
Guess what.. They have no standing.. The board will rule he is a Naturalize American citizen thus he can be on the ballot!!!
Don't let ¿Jeb? hear about this.
he's likely to try it, seeing as how suing his way into office worked so well for Gore in *Florida*
("...I was governor there, you know!")
against...
oh wait.
Cant wait until 9:01pm on November 8th, when CNN calls New York for Trump, and the liberal panel just sits there in stunned silence, as the entire race will be over right there.
“Other pieces in the puzzle. Have we ever seen Cruz’s birth certificate? Did he register for the US draft? Have we seen the certificate issued saying he is a US citizen?”
Cruz’ birth certificate says he was born in Canada. He was automatically registered for the selective service when he applied for a federal grant for college. We have not seen a CRBA (Consular report of birth abroad) that his mother should have applied for when he was born. We have not seen his passport.
We have seen his mother’s birth certificate, but we do not know for sure if she became a Canadian citizen like his father.
Also, when he was born, Canada did not recognize dual citizenship. It wasn’t until 6 years later. We know he was a dual citizen, because he gave up his Canadian citizenship about 2 years ago.
In that dream, did Oprah give us all new Pontiacs?
http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/#
Pretty powerful and easy to understand presentation about Cruz and Rubio’s eligibility to run for POTUS.
The constitution defines citizen ... A1,S8 is a person born a subject/citizen of a foreign nation, A2 is a person born a US citizen and noting else. Get the picture?
Ark does not support your case. The court’s dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent. Note that is on the dissent - that argument did not pass muster.
Cuban law or Canadian law or the laws of any other country is IRRELEVANT when determining US citizenship. Only US law applies.
A citizen who is born a citizen is not naturalized. A citizen who is born a citizen qualifies as NBC. The rule of naturalization that determines who is a citizen at birth, born a citizen, is Title 8 section1 1401. Such individuals are not and never need to be naturalized.
What is 1401 part of? Rules of immigration and naturalization in which the 1868 Act is a part of.
And even though Pt 1 of section 12 of Title 8 says, Nationals and citizens at birth, the key is
1401(a) a person born in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
As it is for the naturalized, so it is for the one born and what does the naturalized have to do before becoming a US citizen ... renounce any & all foreign allegiance.
Per law, did Ted have to renounce a foreign citizenship that he had since birth?
This isn't rocket science, it is called natural law, the child is the nationality (tribe) of the father. God set this law in place at creation and until the last century, it was upheld by all nations.
“Barry Korman and William Gallo? And what are their ties to Trump?”
New York real estate, see post 10 above.
So they will be doing Trumps dirty work for him, giving him deniability of any involvement. I get it.
No, the Constitution does not define citizen. In fact, the Constitution only has 4 instances of the word “citizen” and none of those instances is a definition provided.
Article 1 section 2 - senator qualifications
Article 2 section 1 - president qualifications
Article 3 section 2 - jury trials (modified by 11th Amendment)
Article 4 section 2 - privileges and immunities
Further, the Bill of Rights does not even mention citizen once. You have to get to the 14th amendment which reestablishes the policy of jus soli as citizenship for all who are born on US soil. And that is literally referred to as a “justification” not a definition. Now ask yourself why did an amendment have to be used to restore jus soli? Well Congress, under it’s authority of Article 1 section 8 had defined citizens to not include slaves.
Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 also have the word citizen but again none of them define citizen.
So how is it that you believe the Constitution defines citizen?
No, Article 1 Section 8 grants to congress the UNLIMITED authority to define ALL rules of naturalization. That means who is an alien, who is a citizen, who has to be naturalized and who does not.
In fact, the very first Congress in the Naturalization act of 1790 did specifically reference natural born citizens and SPECIFICLY applied the term to those born beyond the shores of the US to citizen parents.
Now that naturalization act has been repealed and replaced by another act. And that one was repealed and replaced and so on and so forth until we get to the current law as expressed in USC Title 8 section 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
We are a nation of laws. Peoples opinions as is this video are irrelevant. What maters is the relevant law which can be found in USC Title 8 section 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.