Posted on 04/02/2016 1:29:07 PM PDT by tallyhoe
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has won a case in Pennsylvania’s highest court that had challenged his eligibility to appear on the state’s GOP primary ballot and serve as president.
The state Supreme Court order Thursday upheld a lower-court judge’s decision to dismiss the case.
A Pittsburgh resident and registered Republican voter, Carmon Elliott, had argued that Cruz isn’t eligible to run for president or to appear on Pennsylvania’s April 26 primary ballot because he was born in Canada.
(Excerpt) Read more at youngcons.com ...
Very true. Vlad Putin could come over here, knock up Rosie Odonnell and that child could be President? That doesnt even pass the smell test.
I am afraid there is a concerted effort by both sides to destroy the natural born clause.
I for one will not be a part of it.
>> I am hopeful that he can change some character issues <<
Not too many folks ever change their basic character at age 69.
;)
No worries
Don't forget the late Monsieur Vattel. He is actually the "controlling legal authority" according to no less an expert than Dr. Orly Taitz, Dentiste Extraordinaire of California.
And by the way, where oh where is the good Doctor Taitz when we need her so much? Not enough humor around here these days!
>> Give it up Trumpbots <<
No, no, no!
What would we do for laughs without them?
i’m finding it hard to adjust some things at 47. Anger management and a few others.
It DOES get harder with age.
But he has to.
Very funny. Explain to me why the DNC would not object to a blatant disqualification.
The controlling law is the Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), 66 Stat. 163, 236 (1952)
http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=66&page=163
You can stay on the side of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC. I’ll stay on the side of constitutional case law.
Next?
“Sir, I am not a fool. I can read the Constitution. Judges are not supreme rulers...for example Justice Roberts and Obamacare..”
Actually when it comes to interpreting the law, yes, they are. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is. I don’t agree with their decisions, but until a better law is written, oh well.
Don't understand Common Law, do you.
I don't have to guess. I KNOW what the answer will be. Ted Cruz is a US Citizen by birth. And, contrary to all the misinformation, speculation and bar talk that gets spread around the internet by the usual manure spreaders, the terms "US citizen by birth" and "natural born citizen" are synonymous.
The controlling law is the Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), 66 Stat. 163, 236 (1952).
The foreign-born child is not a citizen if the citizen parent does not meet the requirements of this statute. The foreign-born child is not a citizen by birth, the foreign-born child is a citizen by statute.
No sir that is not true. “Natural born” is opposite of “foreign born”. You can live in denial. Then rage and then acceptance. Good luck.
Ah yes, Dr. Taitz was a constitutional scholar of the first rank. Some people apparently paid for a lifetime membership in the Birther Association. They are still around and trying to get their full worth for those dues.
Go back an read it again.
Here is the complete Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling ...
[J-56-2016]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
CARMON ELLIOTT, : No. 29 MAP 2016
:
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
TED CRUZ, :
:
Appellee :
ORDER
PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 31, 2016
AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2016, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
Victor Williams’s pro se Notice to Intervene as Appellant is
DENIED.
Appellant’s Application for Oral Argument is DENIED.
They even put the word AFFIRMED in all caps in case somewhat might have missed it.
The original Appellant, Carmen Elliott was denied an oral argument, but they read his written appeal and they decided it Per Curium, which means without a written opinion and that usually means that the decision was unanimous.
Here is the law, a unanimous decision, from the 1875 case brought by a Missouri woman, Virginia Minor, who claimed that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th, written by Congressman John Bingham, gave her suffrage (the right to vote). To anticipate the confusion Cruzbots will certainly try to spread, here is that privileges and protections clause:
"All persons born or naturalized in the Untied States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States , nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,, without due process of law; nor deny to any person with its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."This Section defines constitutional citizens. Previous to this amendment, only natural born citizens were constitutionally defined, and only mentioned for the purpose of presidential eligibility. Naturalization laws were defined by sovereign states, and obviously not uniform. Some states required residency, and some denied citizenship to negroes and slaves. Nowhere in this amendment does the term natural born citizen appear. Is author explicitly confirmed the Vattel, Pufendorf, Paine, Marshall, etc. etc. definition to Congress in at least two addresses to the House while campaigning for passage of the bill which became the 14th amendment.
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….For Virginia Minor to have been denied a privilege which denial was contravened by the 14th Amendment, that privilege needed to have been granted to some women who were citizens before the 14th Amendment was passed. For that decision to be made Virginia needed to be legally a citizen. The only constitutional citizens, the only uniform definition for citizens before the 14th Amendment, was for natural born citizens. To assert that Virginia was a citizen, she need to be a natural born citizen. She was born to two citizen parents in Missouri, was thus a natural born citizen, and thus a citizen. That is why Minor v. Happersett needed the court establish the common-law definition, making it precedent, so recognized in dozens of cases, including Wong Kim Ark, used there to affirm that Wong Kim, born in the U.S. to domiciled parents, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, was deemed a "citizen", and not a natural born citizen. Suffrage for women was not granted until 1920 by the XIX Amendment.
For any who haven't seen it, here is the precedent being carefully defined by Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who nowhere mentions Vattel, or Paine, or Marshall, or Washington, because the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to interpret the constitution:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.State courts, supreme or otherwise are created by Congress. They do not have jurisdiction to amend the Constitution or Supreme Court decisions other than by Article V Conventions requiring 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states with delegates appointed by the Congress. No NBC case has reached discovery. Kagan and Sotomayor refuse to recuse themselves and denied certiorari to the most thoroughly researched case to reach the Supreme Court, Kirchner v. Obama. Had Minor v. Happersett not been overturned or replaced. Kagan and Sotomayor, Obama appointees, would have lost their lifetime appointments to the court because Obama was not legally president. That shows remarkable corruption of the legal system which has helped to resolve disputes for over 150 years (we had an enormous dispute resulting the 14th Amendment which imposed a "uniform rule for NATURALIZATION" in 1869.)
Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley all represent what seems like a strategy toward "globalism", the objective of Heidi Cruz' tenure on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations. Perhaps we will all chose a North American Union like the European Union, as the CFR has preached for decades. But the gaggle of naturalized citizens campaigning for president or vice president seems an underhanded way to achieve that goal.
“I said there was a correlation here on FR....”
Of course there is a correlation insofar as FR is in general a rough reflection of most Republican and Independent voters.
People said the same thing about McCain in 2008.
“He was born in Panama, he’s not eligible.”
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.