Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity - My letter to the Maine GOP on Cruz Eligibility
Vanity ^ | January 18, 2016 | vanity

Posted on 01/18/2016 7:19:37 AM PST by Cboldt

My letter to Jason Savage, the executive diretor of the Maine GOP ...

There is evidence that Cruz is a naturalized citizen of the US. He was born in Canada, and the SCOTUS case of Rogers v. Bellei, if applied, would assign Cruz the status of naturalized citizen of the US.

I understand that certification of his qualifications emanates from the RNC, and that the Maine GOP is powerless to challenge the certification. A certification that is clearly false, as any competent court would find, if it found it had jurisdiction.

I also understand that I am voting, in the general, for an elector, ant that I am not voting for the eventual nominee of the party.

Nonetheless, what is occurring is in the nature of perpetrating a fraud on those who are considering the slate of candidate offered in the primary. The party should offer only qualified candidates.

What should be done about this, and what are you going to do about this?


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: birther; citizenship; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
Nothing further.
1 posted on 01/18/2016 7:19:37 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

* yawn *


2 posted on 01/18/2016 7:24:51 AM PST by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income taxes" - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The right pedigree is the most important thing in a Dog and Pony show.

How do we know that Donald Trump is not the bastard son of an Italian Waiter?

I want Paternity tests on all candidates. After all, Vattel insisted that the right of Citizenship flowed from the father.

We must insist that every candidate show that they are a pure bred. No Mongrels allowed!


3 posted on 01/18/2016 7:25:00 AM PST by P-Marlowe (Tagline pending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The RNC is more than willing to commit the same crime as did San Fran Nan and certify a candidate that they know is ineligible. They are politicians.Laws do not apply to them. Tar, feathers and orange jump suits might make them change their minds. Worth a try IMHO!


4 posted on 01/18/2016 7:25:13 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

+1


5 posted on 01/18/2016 7:28:27 AM PST by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
-- The RNC is more than willing to commit the same crime as did San Fran Nan and certify a candidate that they know is ineligible. --

True indeed. But Cruz presents an opportunity for a very clear flouting of the law, unlike Obama who can hide behind handwaving and shiny shit until somebody with clarity of mind sees through the smokescreen

6 posted on 01/18/2016 7:28:51 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I pray for great wisdom to apply in the situation. It looks like a “Casus Bellei” all right. At the least it shows that the USSC can come at this thing from different angles and nobody knows which one it will take.

It’s possible that yes, Cruz did bite off more than he could chew in this situation. This may not be his hour for the presidential race. That doesn’t mean it isn’t his hour for something else.

Nobody wins a game of negativity and doubt. Trump and Cruz might be better positioned with Cruz helping to push the Trump spearhead and with both taking a positive tone.


7 posted on 01/18/2016 7:29:26 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

If you’re a Naturalized Citizen, wouldn’t you have to attend a Naturalization ceremony? Can you tell us when Cruz had his Naturalization ceremony?


8 posted on 01/18/2016 7:35:18 AM PST by Texican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texican72
Apparently Bellei treated it as naturalized since it was by virtue of act of Congress, even though no "ceremony" ever happened specific for Bellei.
9 posted on 01/18/2016 7:37:29 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Texican72
-- If you're a Naturalized Citizen, wouldn't you have to attend a Naturalization ceremony? Can you tell us when Cruz had his Naturalization ceremony? --

One need not attend a naturalization ceremony to be naturalized. Congress has the power to naturalize people without resort to the ceremony, and it has constitutionally exercised that power in 8 USC 1401 et seq.

Seeing as how Cruz falls into the class of naturalized without a naturalization ceremony, he did not attend a naturalization ceremony.

10 posted on 01/18/2016 7:38:28 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

From wiki

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.


11 posted on 01/18/2016 7:39:01 AM PST by babygene (Make America Great Again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Arguments and opinions in the justification of a decision of one case are legally definitive of absolutely nothing for another case.

They carry no more weight than a footnote and set no more legal precedent than a court stenographers fart.


12 posted on 01/18/2016 7:42:33 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Natural-born means citizen at birth. If you have any difficulty believing that was the original intent of the Constitution, you need only read the Naturalization Act of 1790, the very first Congress, which grants “natural-born citizen” status to those who are citizens at birth.

The Naturalization Act was merely legislation. It is no longer the controlling legislation. The important point is that it answers what the Constitution means by “natural-born citizen.”


13 posted on 01/18/2016 7:45:18 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babygene

This looks like a pretty good parallel to the Cruz situation, though I never fail to be surprised at what we would think is slam dunk, not being so at the USSC.

It looks like a doubt situation at this point. The class move would be for Cruz not to buck this, and, I think, throw support to Trump. He needs to sit down with Trump and make a deal. Trump needs advice. Cruz is usually good at things conservative. This would greatly help the conservative angst at Trump and make him more acceptable. Both should agree that we don’t have time to tolerate another Democrat presidency.


14 posted on 01/18/2016 7:46:12 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

So what you are saying is that whereas no court granted standing for anyone to sue Obama, that is no guarantee that no court will grant standing to sue Ted Cruz.


15 posted on 01/18/2016 7:46:46 AM PST by chris37 (heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
So, basically, precedent have no weight unless they are on the same footing as the case in hand.

That's poppycock. You are being pedantic, and are a sophist. Probably an idiot too, if I may speak my mind.

16 posted on 01/18/2016 7:46:58 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

The USSC could buck this, yes. WILL it, especially when it has ulterior motives not to... another question.


17 posted on 01/18/2016 7:47:10 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Man, this thread sure has drawn the flies.

The Act of 1790 is, on its face, an "undefinition". It creates a legal fiction.

18 posted on 01/18/2016 7:48:33 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” It specifies that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” the only US statute ever to use the term. (From Wikipedia). Ted Cruz is “natural born” not “naturalized.”
19 posted on 01/18/2016 7:48:50 AM PST by Procyon (Decentralize, degovernmentalize, deregulate, demonopolize, decredentialize, disentitle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babygene

So Cboldt is citing this because he believes that Cruz never lived in the U.S.?


20 posted on 01/18/2016 7:50:02 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson