Posted on 01/25/2016 7:13:33 PM PST by Citizen Zed
The plaintiff, Walter L. Wagner, asserts that Cruz is not natural born as defined by the Constitution because only one of Cruz's parents (his mother) was a U.S. citizen at his time of birth in Canada and because, he alleges, their intention at Cruz's birth was "to have residency or citizenship in a foreign (non-U.S.A.) country."
...
In 2008, Wagner filed suit in federal court against the U.S. Department of Energy and European Center for Nuclear Energy Research (CERN), alleging that the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator might create a black hole that could destroy Earth -- and that the governmental entities were covering up this risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
No problem. Since I am in the Cruz camp, I have not really been tracking the Trump endorsements, so only the ones that had articles here that caught my attention stick out in my mind.
Maybe a Trump supporter will give you a full list for you to see.
Or
1. Bloomberg runs Independent as write-in.
2. Biden runs Democrat as write-in after Hillary wins primary then drops out.
3. Trump wins primary but then does not win majority of the Electoral College after weeks of manual ballot counting.
4. Trump dies of a massive heart attack (his doctor lied).
5. Biden has a brain hemorage (finally).
6. House and Senate must select Bloomberg as prez.
7. Pepsi and Coke go bankrupt.
8. Diabetes is cured.
Exactly what part of what my post was BS? It was all facts.
Cruz’s mother never became a Canadian citizen. She was never eligible to vote. You don’t have very many facts straight.
Now Utah.
CRuz needs to get this settled, quick. Why isn’t he?
No standing. He needs to be an opponent on the ballot to have standing.
Just saying, the party is its own competent "judge" of eligibility.
Persons who become citizens-at-birth solely by operation of Act of Congress are considered naturalized. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998), Wong Kim Ark, and any of many other cases that involve a person made citizen by Act of Congress.
Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress."Scalia Concurring Opinion in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
FWIW, Cruz also had no control over the fact that he had Cuban citizenship at birth too. Cuba’s claim is the same as the US, birth abroad to one citizen parent. Senior Cruz didn’t renounce his Cuban citizenship until being naturalized in Canada, after Ted was born.
A+ Very imaginative and funny! Actually, anything seems possible in this wild and wacky election cycle!
Hmmm. You raise an interesting point, Cboldt.
So, if the GOPe just wanted to appoint their own choice, they have the authority to just disqualify anybody at any point in time without being accountable to anybody?
Maybe that really is what they plan to do, to Trump or Cruz, and why they seem so confident about the outcome.
Very interesting.
They are accountable, that comes with having the power. But they don't have to run a person who is not qualified. They wouldn't run with a 30 year old, for example.
The person who is denied the opportunity can seek relief in court on some civil law claim, breach of promise or something like that. The party holds the door open for all who are qualified, I meet, the party rejected me.
Plus there is accountability in the public eye. Do you want the party to front unqualified candidates? How about an unqualified nominee?
Cruz can be knocked out easily on constitutional grounds. There is ample case law precedent on the subject, and the RNC has lawyers. Trump can't be knocked out on constitutional grounds.
Would not the RNC be liable for allowing an unqualified person to run and certifying eligibility if he was NOT eleigible? . McConnell has refused to declare Cruz eligible like congress did McCain. That should be grounds enough for the party to act and seek declarative judgment IMO
I think so. The persons who have standing are opponents on the primary, just the same. But the RNC can be sued for advancing a candidate who falsely asserts eligibility.
The opponents on the ballot also have standing to sue the Secretary of state, and I think all states have a misdemeanor penalty for filing a materially false certificate of eligibility. I think the DA has the keys to this door.
-- McConnell has refused to declare Cruz eligible like congress did McCain. --
That move operates only in the realm of public perception. It has no force of law at all.
-- That should be grounds enough for the party to act and seek declarative judgment --
The party doesn't need a court order in order to find, on its own volition, that a candidate who claims to be qualified, is not. Should that happen, it would be up to the excluded candidate to sue for a court order to restore his name to the ballot.
The courts can order the Secretary of State to allow only qualified candidates on the ballot
The courts can order the RNC to not offer an unqualified candidate to the Secretary of State
And without resort to the courts, the RNC can refuse to offer an unqualified candidate to the Secretary of state.
Who has standing varies in the election cycle. Opponents in the primary are those who are in the same party. Opponents in the general are those in opposing parties as well as independents who manage to qualify for any state's general election ballot.
I don’t think he can prove he is a citizen. This country is really topsy turvy when the burden of proof is on us to prove he is not a citizen (and no one has standing apparently) instead of on him to prove he is one.
Although why it would even be under consideration amazes me. Someone cannot by any logical means be a citizen of another country and a natural born citizen here.
The case you cite concerns an illegitimate foreign born child who wasn’t recognized by their us citizen father. Cruz’s mother was a US citizen and she didn’t deny Cruz at birth, she registered his birth at the US consulate.
Have you seen a copy of the registration of birth at the US consulate? Could you provide a link please?
Setting aside the fact contention you make without evidence (Cruz's mother registered his birth at the US consulate), and taking the contention as true, Cruz is still naturalized in the eyes of the law.
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Bellei was born in Italy of a US citizen mother and an Italian father. Bellei was adjudicated a US citizen at birth.
Do you see any material difference between Bellei and Cruz, at the time of their birth, as it may affect their US citizenship? If so, what is the material difference?
While you are pondering that, you may want to find a cite to case law that finds that a US citizen born abroad is NOT naturalized into US citizenship.
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.